Hasting's execution

Eva wrote (following a thread on Richard's divorce clause)

Not in my book, Eva. The King's Shadow (so far only available in print and
ebook in Australia ) has a build-up of Hastings' motives and final
treachery. Being informed, Richard calls the council, (including Hastings,
Morton and Rotherham) and convenes a Constable's Court, as the Constable of
England was absolutely entitled to do, on the spot in any place and without
recourse to jury, and as judge himself. The trial would have taken only an
hour or so, with witnesses and evidence already having been prepared in
advance.

Hastings' immediate execution, as the most prominent member of the plot
against the Protector, was imperative as it then served to eradicate all
other possible avenues of conspiracy.

Without a leader, any conspiracy is shattered. So no other executions were
necessary. Richard always ordered as little bloodshed as possible.

The Constable had every legal right to order such an execution and sign the
warrant immediately after presenting conclusive evidence and declaring
Hastings guilty as charged.

This would have been fast, business-like, extremely serious and basically
private. It would have needed to be so in order to avoid panic in the city,
and warn the other conspirators to disappear and continue their
trouble-making from the shadows. Hastings also had access to his own
considerable armed defence, and this would have been a terrible danger for
the whole city had Hastings been pre-warned.

Only the declaration of the execution and its cause would have been
declared. Thus the Londoners and contemporary chroniclers would have had
little inside knowledge, and been somewhat confused as to the details,
simply accepting that their Protector had discovered Lord Hastings was
guilty of treason, and had been duly executed.

After all, they knew - as few seem to realise these days, that Richard was
Protector of the Realm, not simply protector of Edward V. He wasn't a
glorified baby-sitter for the new king. His title was Lord Protector and
Defender of the Realm. He was expected, both as Protector and High
Constable, to act in every way to put down treason, possible armed
insurrection, and protect peace in England.

Morton, having been involved in the conspiracy, would have had no motive
afterwards to explain the true story, his own failure and shame, or his
original behaviour to young More. More simply made his version up, knowing
the speed of the event from existing rumour.

My book is pure fiction. But More's is pure fiction also - and mine is far
more logical and likely.

After all, there's no evidence for my theory. But there's no evidence
against it either, and it makes a lot more sense than More's. Richard had
those powers, and surely would have used them.

Barbara

cid:[email protected]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Eva – it’s published by Simon & Schuster, but so far in Australia only. And my previous book was based on the so-called ‘Perkin Warbeck’ affair – also published in Australia only. One day I hope they’ll be available world-wide.

I get so frustrated by these situations – such as the Hastings’ affair – where More’s story is so obviously illogical and yet nearly everyone accepts it as true, Even if they’re not Ricardians, surely they should use a little common sense!

Barbara

Thanks very much indeed Mac and Sandra and Eva.

I appreciate those words very much.

I am totally convinced that something very close to my theory is exactly what happened.

Richard is often shown as having had some stupid temper tantrum and executed Hastings without proper reason. That’s just absurd. At no other time did he behave with such stupid and bloodthirsty temper. Besides, other (lesser known) people were arrested at exactly the same time across London – well timed arrests so as to cut the insurrection short at birth. I think that proves Richard did not act on the spur of the moment. In which case he – with his powers as High Constable – would have planned the trial – the presentation of evidence – and the arrests to coincide, and with the minimum of chaos and danger to the general public.

As for Hastings being innocent – that’s also highly unlikely since the other arrests more or less prove that a treasonable conspiracy was in progress.

I believe the evidence is there if you look for it with an open mind and at least a reasonable understanding of Richard’s character based on the rest of his life’s actions.

It is More’s stupid but colourful tale which leads people astray. But that historians should believe More’s story is actually unforgiveable.

1) Richard’s role as Protector had nothing to do with looking after EdV. Richard was Protector and Defender of the Realm. His responsibility was the safety and peace of the realm – and this is exactly what he did as far as Rivers, Grey, various Woodville uprisings and Hastings were concerned.

2) As High Constable he had the right to convene a court – rather like a court martial – at any time and in any place. This would be without jury and with himself as judge. There was no appeal. But it would be a quick, private and legal trial, with others present as witnesses, and evidence presented with possible witnesses. If he had these powers (and had for many years previously) – why would he not use them during times of danger?

3) During all times of rebellion and trouble, Richard executed a minimum of the leaders, as few as possible, and pardoned others extensively. Why would he have suddenly behaved like a two year old with a temper tantrum, when at all other times he was careful, wise and systematic?

4) Why would Morton – after having been arrested, made to look a traitor and a failure – tell the dreary truth to this very young and comparatively unimportant boy in his household? Morton had every reason to distort the truth and make Richard look as bad as possible. More – whether with Morton’s advice or not – simply had fun writing fiction without the slightest expectation of publishing his various bits and pieces of unfinished manuscript.

Sorry for getting carried away – but I am so frustrated by the public conception of the Hastings affair – which makes no sense whatsoever.

And yes, I do wish I could get my books published in the UK.

Cheers everyone –

Barbara

Thanks very much indeed Mac and Sandra and Eva.

I appreciate those words very much.

I am totally convinced that something very close to my theory is exactly what happened.

Richard is often shown as having had some stupid temper tantrum and executed Hastings without proper reason. That's just absurd. At no other time did he behave with such stupid and bloodthirsty temper. Besides, other (lesser known) people were arrested at exactly the same time across London  well timed arrests so as to cut the insurrection short at birth. I think that proves Richard did not act on the spur of the moment. In which case he  with his powers as High Constable  would have planned the trial  the presentation of evidence  and the arrests to coincide, and with the minimum of chaos and danger to the general public.

As for Hastings being innocent  that's also highly unlikely since the other arrests more or less prove that a treasonable conspiracy was in progress.

I believe the evidence is there if you look for it with an open mind and at least a reasonable understanding of Richard's character based on the rest of his life's actions.

It is More's stupid but colourful tale which leads people astray. But that historians should believe More's story is actually unforgiveable.

1) Richard's role as Protector had nothing to do with looking after EdV. Richard was Protector and Defender of the Realm. His responsibility was the safety and peace of the realm  and this is exactly what he did as far as Rivers, Grey, various Woodville uprisings and Hastings were concerned.

2) As High Constable he had the right to convene a court  rather like a court martial  at any time and in any place. This would be without jury and with himself as judge. There was no appeal. But it would be a quick, private and legal trial, with others present as witnesses, and evidence presented with possible witnesses. If he had these powers (and had for many years previously)  why would he not use them during times of danger?

3) During all times of rebellion and trouble, Richard executed a minimum of the leaders, as few as possible, and pardoned others extensively. Why would he have suddenly behaved like a two year old with a temper tantrum, when at all other times he was careful, wise and systematic?

4) Why would Morton  after having been arrested, made to look a traitor and a failure  tell the dreary truth to this very young and comparatively unimportant boy in his household? Morton had every reason to distort the truth and make Richard look as bad as possible. More  whether with Morton's advice or not  simply had fun writing fiction without the slightest expectation of publishing his various bits and pieces of unfinished manuscript.

Sorry for getting carried away  but I am so frustrated by the public conception of the Hastings affair  which makes no sense whatsoever.

And yes, I do wish I could get my books published in the UK.

Cheers everyone 

Barbara

What a fascinating idea, Sandra. I’ve honestly never thought of that before. I admit I simply assumed that Hastings, supporting the need for immediate order and peace after the king’s death, was quick to do the sensible thing and inform Richard. Perhaps knowing/guessing from past experience that the Woodvilles would cause dangerous chaos.

Then – probably concerned for his own loss of power since the huge influence he had accepted as his due during EdIV’s reign was now collapsing – he began to conspire to regain his own control.

Now your suggestion makes a great deal of sense. Fascinating! I see no obvious difficulty with such a theory.

Barbara

What a fascinating idea, Sandra. I've honestly never thought of that before. I admit I simply assumed that Hastings, supporting the need for immediate order and peace after the king's death, was quick to do the sensible thing and inform Richard. Perhaps knowing/guessing from past experience that the Woodvilles would cause dangerous chaos.

Then  probably concerned for his own loss of power since the huge influence he had accepted as his due during EdIV's reign was now collapsing  he began to conspire to regain his own control.

Now your suggestion makes a great deal of sense. Fascinating! I see no obvious difficulty with such a theory.

Barbara

Thank you, Barbara. I know that as an idea it might not stand up to full examination, but as there are so many question marks over those hurried events in 1483, there just might be this other angle from which to view it all. Hastings and Richard did not like each other, IIRC, so in spite of Edward's wish to have Richard as Lord Protector, it really might not have suited Hastings at all. He could appear as friendly and loyal as he chose, but might in actual fact have thought his fortunes would far better with the Woodvilles. Either way, Edward's son would be the new king. Perhaps the Woodvilles promised him all he wanted and he believed them. I don't know this, of course, but he was between the devil and the deep blue sea, and then the Woodville devil came up with the goods. The deep blue Lord Protector sea would most likely mean a gradual sinking. The terms in which Hastings couched any message sent to Richard will not be known for sure, but if no hint was given of any plotting, and Richard therefore did not suspect anything, he would come south quickly with only a limited retinue, and would surely ride into any armed trap. His enemies would have wanted rid of him before he got to London and took up his duties in earnest. OK, it's a wild theory, but something odd went on at Stony Stratford etc. Whatever it was, instead of falling into it, Richard saw through it and got possession of Edward V. Thus Rivers & Co paid the price. Hastings' involvement might not have come to light, and he would obviously pretend continued loyalty, but he and Richard did not like each other, so all the time Hastings could have been liaising with the Woodvilles. Another attempt on Richard's life was planned, and on the very day it was set to take place, Richard learned of it at the eleventh hour. And he finally learned of Hastings' deep involvement. Hence the swift trial and execution. No, I know this is all conjecture, and that many of you will have umpteen excellent reasons why it couldn't be so, but I don't find it totally, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt impossible. If Hastings thought he was more likely to fare better with the Woodvilles than with Richard, then I believe he would join them, even though he and Elizabeth Woodville might have been chalk and cheese. She too might have seen the benefit of having him completely on her side rather than Richard's. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:52 PM To: Subject: Re: Hasting's execution

What a fascinating idea, Sandra. I've honestly never thought of that before. I admit I simply assumed that Hastings, supporting the need for immediate order and peace after the king's death, was quick to do the sensible thing and inform Richard. Perhaps knowing/guessing from past experience that the Woodvilles would cause dangerous chaos.

Then  probably concerned for his own loss of power since the huge influence he had accepted as his due during EdIV's reign was now collapsing  he began to conspire to regain his own control.

Now your suggestion makes a great deal of sense. Fascinating! I see no obvious difficulty with such a theory.

Barbara

Sandra I have a theory that if MB was going to achieve her goal of putting Henry on the throne there were certain people who were standing in her way. Edward, the Princes, Richard and his son,  Edward of Warwick and Hastings. If Hastings was plotting with the Woodvilles from day one then maybe he did lure Richard to London because it would have been very difficult to eliminate him in the North.

Hi, Sandra -
I don't recall reading that Hastings and Richard didn't like one another. Do you recall your sources for that information? My recollection is that one of the early sources (More?) notes that Richard missed/regretted/mourned the loss of Hastings afterward. I believe this was commented on by a scholarly recently - perhaps Hancock or JA-H. As someone has commented here, I think Hastings was set up, possibly by Buckingham, as Richard was weaker without Buckingham's support.

Johanne

--- Original Message ---

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
Sent: 8 October, 2014 7:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Hasting's execution

Thank you, Barbara. I know that as an idea it might not stand up to full examination, but as there are so many question marks over those hurried events in 1483, there just might be this other angle from which to view it all. Hastings and Richard did not like each other, IIRC, so in spite of Edward's wish to have Richard as Lord Protector, it really might not have suited Hastings at all. He could appear as friendly and loyal as he chose, but might in actual fact have thought his fortunes would far better with the Woodvilles. Either way, Edward's son would be the new king. Perhaps the Woodvilles promised him all he wanted and he believed them. I don't know this, of course, but he was between the devil and the deep blue sea, and then the Woodville devil came up with the goods. The deep blue Lord Protector sea would most likely mean a gradual sinking. The terms in which Hastings couched any message sent to Richard will not be known for sure, but if no hint was given of any plotting, and Richard therefore did not suspect anything, he would come south quickly with only a limited retinue, and would surely ride into any armed trap. His enemies would have wanted rid of him before he got to London and took up his duties in earnest. OK, it's a wild theory, but something odd went on at Stony Stratford etc. Whatever it was, instead of falling into it, Richard saw through it and got possession of Edward V. Thus Rivers & Co paid the price. Hastings' involvement might not have come to light, and he would obviously pretend continued loyalty, but he and Richard did not like each other, so all the time Hastings could have been liaising with the Woodvilles. Another attempt on Richard's life was planned, and on the very day it was set to take place, Richard learned of it at the eleventh hour. And he finally learned of Hastings' deep involvement. Hence the swift trial and execution. No, I know this is all conjecture, and that many of you will have umpteen excellent reasons why it couldn't be so, but I don't find it totally, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt impossible. If Hastings thought he was more likely to fare better with the Woodvilles than with Richard, then I believe he would join them, even though he and Elizabeth Woodville might have been chalk and cheese. She too might have seen the benefit of having him completely on her side rather than Richard's. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:52 PM To: Subject: Re: Hasting's execution

What a fascinating idea, Sandra. I've honestly never thought of that before. I admit I simply assumed that Hastings, supporting the need for immediate order and peace after the king's death, was quick to do the sensible thing and inform Richard. Perhaps knowing/guessing from past experience that the Woodvilles would cause dangerous chaos.

Then  probably concerned for his own loss of power since the huge influence he had accepted as his due during EdIV's reign was now collapsing  he began to conspire to regain his own control.

Now your suggestion makes a great deal of sense. Fascinating! I see no obvious difficulty with such a theory.

Barbara

Hi, Sandra -
I don't recall reading that Hastings and Richard didn't like one another. Do you recall your sources for that information? My recollection is that one of the early sources (More?) notes that Richard missed/regretted/mourned the loss of Hastings afterward. I believe this was commented on by a scholarly recently - perhaps Hancock or JA-H. As someone has commented here, I think Hastings was set up, possibly by Buckingham, as Richard was weaker without Buckingham's support.

Johanne

--- Original Message ---

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
Sent: 8 October, 2014 7:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hasting's execution

Thank you, Barbara. I know that as an idea it might not stand up to full examination, but as there are so many question marks over those hurried events in 1483, there just might be this other angle from which to view it all. Hastings and Richard did not like each other, IIRC, so in spite of Edward's wish to have Richard as Lord Protector, it really might not have suited Hastings at all. He could appear as friendly and loyal as he chose, but might in actual fact have thought his fortunes would far better with the Woodvilles. Either way, Edward's son would be the new king. Perhaps the Woodvilles promised him all he wanted and he believed them. I don't know this, of course, but he was between the devil and the deep blue sea, and then the Woodville devil came up with the goods. The deep blue Lord Protector sea would most likely mean a gradual sinking. The terms in which Hastings couched any message sent to Richard will not be known for sure, but if no hint was given of any plotting, and Richard therefore did not suspect anything, he would come south quickly with only a limited retinue, and would surely ride into any armed trap. His enemies would have wanted rid of him before he got to London and took up his duties in earnest. OK, it's a wild theory, but something odd went on at Stony Stratford etc. Whatever it was, instead of falling into it, Richard saw through it and got possession of Edward V. Thus Rivers & Co paid the price. Hastings' involvement might not have come to light, and he would obviously pretend continued loyalty, but he and Richard did not like each other, so all the time Hastings could have been liaising with the Woodvilles. Another attempt on Richard's life was planned, and on the very day it was set to take place, Richard learned of it at the eleventh hour. And he finally learned of Hastings' deep involvement. Hence the swift trial and execution. No, I know this is all conjecture, and that many of you will have umpteen excellent reasons why it couldn't be so, but I don't find it totally, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt impossible. If Hastings thought he was more likely to fare better with the Woodvilles than with Richard, then I believe he would join them, even though he and Elizabeth Woodville might have been chalk and cheese. She too might have seen the benefit of having him completely on her side rather than Richard's. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:52 PM To: Subject: Re: Hasting's execution

What a fascinating idea, Sandra. I've honestly never thought of that before. I admit I simply assumed that Hastings, supporting the need for immediate order and peace after the king's death, was quick to do the sensible thing and inform Richard. Perhaps knowing/guessing from past experience that the Woodvilles would cause dangerous chaos.

Then  probably concerned for his own loss of power since the huge influence he had accepted as his due during EdIV's reign was now collapsing  he began to conspire to regain his own control.

Now your suggestion makes a great deal of sense. Fascinating! I see no obvious difficulty with such a theory.

Barbara

Hi, Johanne. My belief is simply based on a general impression that Richard disapproved of those who led Edward astray  as if he needed leading! Hastings was a prime mover in this, and Richard probably blamed him in some way for egging Edward on to more excesses. That's all. I have no exact source, just a general impression that Hastings wouldn't have been Richard's favourite person, and vice versa. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 11:48 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: Hasting's execution

Hi, Sandra -
I don't recall reading that Hastings and Richard didn't like one another. Do you recall your sources for that information? My recollection is that one of the early sources (More?) notes that Richard missed/regretted/mourned the loss of Hastings afterward. I believe this was commented on by a scholarly recently - perhaps Hancock or JA-H. As someone has commented here, I think Hastings was set up, possibly by Buckingham, as Richard was weaker without Buckingham's support.

Johanne

--- Original Message ---

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
Sent: 8 October, 2014 7:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Hasting's execution

Thank you, Barbara. I know that as an idea it might not stand up to full examination, but as there are so many question marks over those hurried events in 1483, there just might be this other angle from which to view it all. Hastings and Richard did not like each other, IIRC, so in spite of Edward's wish to have Richard as Lord Protector, it really might not have suited Hastings at all. He could appear as friendly and loyal as he chose, but might in actual fact have thought his fortunes would far better with the Woodvilles. Either way, Edward's son would be the new king. Perhaps the Woodvilles promised him all he wanted and he believed them. I don't know this, of course, but he was between the devil and the deep blue sea, and then the Woodville devil came up with the goods. The deep blue Lord Protector sea would most likely mean a gradual sinking. The terms in which Hastings couched any message sent to Richard will not be known for sure, but if no hint was given of any plotting, and Richard therefore did not suspect anything, he would come south quickly with only a limited retinue, and would surely ride into any armed trap. His enemies would have wanted rid of him before he got to London and took up his duties in earnest. OK, it's a wild theory, but something odd went on at Stony Stratford etc. Whatever it was, instead of falling into it, Richard saw through it and got possession of Edward V. Thus Rivers & Co paid the price. Hastings' involvement might not have come to light, and he would obviously pretend continued loyalty, but he and Richard did not like each other, so all the time Hastings could have been liaising with the Woodvilles. Another attempt on Richard's life was planned, and on the very day it was set to take place, Richard learned of it at the eleventh hour. And he finally learned of Hastings' deep involvement. Hence the swift trial and execution. No, I know this is all conjecture, and that many of you will have umpteen excellent reasons why it couldn't be so, but I don't find it totally, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt impossible. If Hastings thought he was more likely to fare better with the Woodvilles than with Richard, then I believe he would join them, even though he and Elizabeth Woodville might have been chalk and cheese. She too might have seen the benefit of having him completely on her side rather than Richard's. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:52 PM To: Subject: Re: Hasting's execution

What a fascinating idea, Sandra. I've honestly never thought of that before. I admit I simply assumed that Hastings, supporting the need for immediate order and peace after the king's death, was quick to do the sensible thing and inform Richard. Perhaps knowing/guessing from past experience that the Woodvilles would cause dangerous chaos.

Then  probably concerned for his own loss of power since the huge influence he had accepted as his due during EdIV's reign was now collapsing  he began to conspire to regain his own control.

Now your suggestion makes a great deal of sense. Fascinating! I see no obvious difficulty with such a theory.

Barbara

Fair ball, Sandra, and maybe a fair surmise. Perhaps along the same lines is the impression I gained (maybe from Kendall) that Richard more or less withdrew to the North because he didn't approve of developments at court. I think this was pretty obvious in particular around the time of George's execution.

So it is certainly possible that Richard would have appreciated Hastings' military prowess and missed him and perhaps even regretted his having acted somewhat hastily - but I still think Richard was in some way goaded into it, as there is no evidence that Hastings was more duplicitous and dangerous than the characters to whom he showed mercy - like Morton. However I guess it is possible that Richard was inclined to show mercy to men of the cloth and women (chivalrous instinct) regardless of the fact that their actions might have justified much more harsh punishment.

Johanne

--- Original Message ---

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
Sent: 8 October, 2014 9:30 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hasting's execution

Hi, Johanne. My belief is simply based on a general impression that Richard disapproved of those who led Edward astray  as if he needed leading! Hastings was a prime mover in this, and Richard probably blamed him in some way for egging Edward on to more excesses. That's all. I have no exact source, just a general impression that Hastings wouldn't have been Richard's favourite person, and vice versa. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 11:48 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: Hasting's execution Hi, Sandra -
I don't recall reading that Hastings and Richard didn't like one another. Do you recall your sources for that information? My recollection is that one of the early sources (More?) notes that Richard missed/regretted/mourned the loss of Hastings afterward. I believe this was commented on by a scholarly recently - perhaps Hancock or JA-H. As someone has commented here, I think Hastings was set up, possibly by Buckingham, as Richard was weaker without Buckingham's support.

Johanne

--- Original Message ---

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
Sent: 8 October, 2014 7:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hasting's execution

Thank you, Barbara. I know that as an idea it might not stand up to full examination, but as there are so many question marks over those hurried events in 1483, there just might be this other angle from which to view it all. Hastings and Richard did not like each other, IIRC, so in spite of Edward's wish to have Richard as Lord Protector, it really might not have suited Hastings at all. He could appear as friendly and loyal as he chose, but might in actual fact have thought his fortunes would far better with the Woodvilles. Either way, Edward's son would be the new king. Perhaps the Woodvilles promised him all he wanted and he believed them. I don't know this, of course, but he was between the devil and the deep blue sea, and then the Woodville devil came up with the goods. The deep blue Lord Protector sea would most likely mean a gradual sinking. The terms in which Hastings couched any message sent to Richard will not be known for sure, but if no hint was given of any plotting, and Richard therefore did not suspect anything, he would come south quickly with only a limited retinue, and would surely ride into any armed trap. His enemies would have wanted rid of him before he got to London and took up his duties in earnest. OK, it's a wild theory, but something odd went on at Stony Stratford etc. Whatever it was, instead of falling into it, Richard saw through it and got possession of Edward V. Thus Rivers & Co paid the price. Hastings' involvement might not have come to light, and he would obviously pretend continued loyalty, but he and Richard did not like each other, so all the time Hastings could have been liaising with the Woodvilles. Another attempt on Richard's life was planned, and on the very day it was set to take place, Richard learned of it at the eleventh hour. And he finally learned of Hastings' deep involvement. Hence the swift trial and execution. No, I know this is all conjecture, and that many of you will have umpteen excellent reasons why it couldn't be so, but I don't find it totally, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt impossible. If Hastings thought he was more likely to fare better with the Woodvilles than with Richard, then I believe he would join them, even though he and Elizabeth Woodville might have been chalk and cheese. She too might have seen the benefit of having him completely on her side rather than Richard's. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:52 PM To: Subject: Re: Hasting's execution

What a fascinating idea, Sandra. I've honestly never thought of that before. I admit I simply assumed that Hastings, supporting the need for immediate order and peace after the king's death, was quick to do the sensible thing and inform Richard. Perhaps knowing/guessing from past experience that the Woodvilles would cause dangerous chaos.

Then  probably concerned for his own loss of power since the huge influence he had accepted as his due during EdIV's reign was now collapsing  he began to conspire to regain his own control.

Now your suggestion makes a great deal of sense. Fascinating! I see no obvious difficulty with such a theory.

Barbara

While my theory is similar yo yours I must stress that it is a only a theory. With regard to Richard and Hastings not liking one another, there was an article in the Ricardian Bulletin or may have been the Ricardian some years ago about Hastings and Richard being on the same side against Edward because he wouldn't send help to Margaret of Burgundy. Then we have an account of Hastings and the Woodvilles being at odds because Hastings was given Captain of Calais instead of Anthony. I wish that I had a Tardis!!! Mary

Carol wrote;

As I pointed out earlier, the part about the bishops being carried to different castles in Wales is an error.

Marie replies:

Sorry, I missed your earlier post. But isn't it the case that Morton was sent to Brecon and Rotherham to Cardiff Castle?

Hilary said.

I have always had a problem with a Woodville/Hastings alliance. From both sides it just doesn't ring true. As well as EW's possible personal animosity to Hastings, there is a long history of rivalry between the Greys in Leics and the Hastings camp. This went on until well after Richard (it was still going in 1509) and is well-documented in Leicester archives. It's just my personal opinion, but I reckon Hastings was set-up, possibly by Buckingham. Secondly, do we know how Sir Thomas Vaughan was drawn into all this - he's usually just grouped with Rivers and Grey? He has some very interesting family connections. H

Answering: The same unlikely change of alliance would apply to Warwick earlier. The lords did what was necessary to bolster their own status and self interests. And am I right in thinking that Thomas Vaughan and Sir Thomas Vaughan were two different people?

Barbara

Johanne said -
As someone has commented here, I think Hastings was set up, possibly by Buckingham, as Richard was weaker without Buckingham's support.

Me –

I have a problem with the frequent suggestion – although with many variations – that Hastings was set up by someone – and in actuality innocent.

I certainly don’t imagine that Richard was infallible, but surely he wasn’t quite that naïve either. He would have been extremely well aware of the various feuds, jealousies and interests of all parties – and would not execute a man of Hastings’ importance without being thoroughly convinced by some incontrovertible evidence.

As with the precontract, people often seem to assume that members of council and parliament in the past were so sully as to accept anything on the word of someone else without any attempt to investigate and confirm the truth. Surely they weren’t so simple. I am quite sure that Richard would have made a considerable effort to uncover the facts, and his execution of such a powerful man meant that man was guilty as charged.

Actually I don’t think Buckingham was too bright – but of course I could be wrong about that – I’m putting 2 and 2 together and making 5..

Barbara

Carol earlier;

"As I pointed out earlier, the part about the bishops being carried to different castles in Wales is an error."

Marie replied:

"Sorry, I missed your earlier post. But isn't it the case that Morton was sent to Brecon and Rotherham to Cardiff Castle?"

Carol responds:

Initially, they were both placed in the Tower., as both Stallworth in his letter to Stonor and the anonymous London citizen I quoted earlier indicate. (""And in the mene tyme ther was dyvvers that imagenyd the deyth of the duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xxiij day of June Anno 1483. And the archbeschope of Yorke, the bischop of Ele, and Oleuer King the secoudare, with other moo, was arrested the same day and put in preson in the Tower.")

At some point, presumably before Richard's progress, Buckingham persuaded Richard to move Morton from the Tower to Brecon. (Bad move, Richard!) But Rotherham was never moved and came out of the Tower after a few weeks. Wikipedia, citing an article in the Ricardian, says he was released in mid-July. Girders.net (accessible only through the Wayback Machine, apparently) says he was released on July 4 and participated in Richard's coronation. That last is easily verifiable if you own a copy of "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents," which I unfortunately don't have).

Since Rotherham was chancellor of Cambridge University, they may have pleaded to Richard for his sake, or maybe even though he'd been (apparently) conferring with Morton and Hastings, the evidence against him was scanty. (?) At any rate, I know he was one of the signers of the petition to Richard by the clergy at the time of Richard's Parliament in 1484, do they must have come to terms of some kind. Certainly, poor old Rotherham (unlike the wily Morton) wasn't involved in any more conspiracies.

I searched for my other post but the way Yahoo is set up now, I can't find it. It'll be in the Hastings thread somewhere.

Carol

Carol wrote:

At some point, presumably before Richard's progress, Buckingham persuaded Richard to move Morton from the Tower to Brecon. (Bad move, Richard!) But Rotherham was never moved and came out of the Tower after a few weeks. Wikipedia, citing an article in the Ricardian, says he was released in mid-July. Girders.net (accessible only through the Wayback Machine, apparently) says he was released on July 4 and participated in Richard's coronation. That last is easily verifiable if you own a copy of "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents," which I unfortunately don't have).

Marie replies:

I'm afraid these writings on Rotherham are not up to date with the latest research. I would highly recommend Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs' 2009 article in the Ricardian: 'Richard III, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and Two Turbulent Priests'.

Basically this states that Rotherham was absent from Richard's coronation, and did not accompany him on his progress. The latter is almost certainly true - he is not on the list of dignitaries who visited Magdalen College with Richard in late July, and wasn't in York to greet Richard when he visited in late August and early September. He was probably pardoned in late September, when we see him - still in Cardiff at this point - issuing a marriage dispensation for a Yorkshire couple, and Richard writing to his tenants asking them to restore to him the rents they had been holding back.

Carol-

Nothing about an interrupted meeting (or the set pieces on witchcraft that appear in both More and Vergil) or a withered arm or strawberries, just two attempts by hostile chroniclers, one slightly more reliable than the other, to explain the sudden execution of Hastings and the accompanying arrest of Morton and Rotherham (who, by the way, was released after a few weeks, perhaps because despite being a supporter of E V, he had not advocated bloodshed).

Me-

Thank you so much for – as usual – a wonderfully clear summary.

Would the Croyland reference to the two separate council meetings : “with singular adroitness, divided the council, so that one part met in the morning at Westminster, and the other at the Tower of London,” – point to the probability that a trial had already been arranged – so that those invited to attend the second meeting at the Tower were actually to witness the trial? In other words the first council meeting was just that while the second was the trial and an entirely different matter. Otherwise why separate the meeting?

Barbara

Hilary wrote:

The two Vaughans are the same, just some spell them by the old form and some the more modern one. So Thomas Vaughan (as I'm spelling him), the son of either Sir Roger Vaughan (as I spell him) or of Robert Vaughan of Monmouth who both had wives called Margaret.

Marie replies:

He was the son of Sir Roger Vaughan. The family seat was Tretower, a few miles east of Brecon (very well worth a visit, by the by). They were half kin of the Herberts.

"I'm afraid these writings on Rotherham are not up to date with the latest research. I would highly recommend Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs' 2009 article in the Ricardian: 'Richard III, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and Two Turbulent Priests'. Basically this states that Rotherham was absent from Richard's coronation, and did not accompany him on his progress. The latter is almost certainly true - he is not on the list of dignitaries who visited Magdalen College with Richard in late July, and wasn't in York to greet Richard when he visited in late August and early September. He was probably pardoned in late September, when we see him - still in Cardiff at this point - issuing a marriage dispensation for a Yorkshire couple, and Richard writing to his tenants asking them to restore to him the rents they had been holding back."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. In a way, I'm disappointed. I thought I'd found a rather significant error in Croyland. (He does make others, as I'm sure you know, notably calling the installation of Edward of Middleham as Prince of Wales a second coronation and having Henry Tudor charge Richard at Bosworth). I suppose it makes sense to have his release in September after Richard has returned from his progress rather than in mid-July. I recall reading that pleas from Cambridge had something to do with his release (he was their chancellor), but I can't recall where.

Wasn't Sir James Tyrell in charge of Cardiff Castle? If so, that would mean Richard entrusted Rotherham to his care--a much wiser choice than entrusting Morton to Buckingham's. (Too bad it wasn't the other way around.)

What are the primary sources that Sutton and Visser-Fuchs are working from, do you know? Also, what were Richard's reasons for releasing Rotherham?

Carol

Barbara wrote:

"Thank you so much for  as usual  a wonderfully clear summary.

Would the Croyland reference to the two separate council meetings : with singular adroitness, divided the council, so that one part met in the morning at Westminster, and the other at the Tower of London,  point to the probability that a trial had already been arranged  so that those invited to attend the second meeting at the Tower were actually to witness the trial? In other words the first council meeting was just that while the second was the trial and an entirely different matter. Otherwise why separate the meeting?"

Carol responds:

You're welcome. I really don't know the answer. I have always thought that the Westminster group was to discuss details of the coronation and the Tower group to discuss political matters, including the treason plot. Richard would, of course, have wanted the plotters to attend the more important meeting, which must have had other business as well, and he would have wanted witnesses to the legality of the proceedings since he was always careful about such matters. I assume that his supposed ally, Buckingham (against whom it seems that the plots were also directed) was there. I would hope that the Duke of Norfolk and other important allies were present. (The story that Lord Stanley was also arrested seems not to be true; at least, no contemporary or near-contemporary source that I've found mentions it. I think Vergil is the first to include him among those arrested; the story that he was wounded in a scuffle before his supposed arrest is part of More's fable.)

Assuming that the story of the division into separate council meetings is true, I don't doubt Richard's "adroitness" in dividing the council, but I think we can attribute his decision to arrest the plotters (and order the execution of one of them) in a meeting filled with his supporters to common sense and self-preservation rather than the sinister intention to murder and/or arrest innocent supporters of Edward V away from the eyes of potential objectors as the chronicler implies. No one could have objected to Richard's authority as Lord High Constable to try them on the spot for treason even if potential objectors had been present, but, still, he probably felt more comfortable doing it surrounded by men he could trust (or thought he could, in the case of Buckingham). I think the chronicler is reading sinister intent and secrecy into the "adroit" division into two groups because he assumes that Richard had been plotting to seize the throne for some time and was ruthlessly eliminating potential opponents along the way. The idea that Hastings et al. might actually be guilty never enters his mind (or Mancini's).

All of this is my interpretation of very limited evidence. Essentially, I'm looking at the facts that Croyland presents but drawing very different conclusions. Of course, we have a piece of evidence that Croyland didn't have access to--Richard's letter to the City of York. Too bad it doesn't identify the queen's "affinity."

I wonder, by the way, whether the old sourpuss (the Croyland chronicler) was one of those relegated to the other meeting, in which case he ought to have known that Richard was acting within his authority as both Lord High Constable and Protector, or whether he was more of an outsider than most historians have supposed.

Carol

Hilary said-

The two Vaughans are the same, just some spell them by the old form and some the more modern one. So Thomas Vaughan (as I'm spelling him), the son of either Sir Roger Vaughan (as I spell him) or of Robert Vaughan of Monmouth who both had wives called Margaret. H

Me –

Thanks for that, Hilary. Most helpful

Carol –

I wonder, by the way, whether the old sourpuss (the Croyland chronicler) was one of those relegated to the other meeting, in which case he ought to have known that Richard was acting within his authority as both Lord High Constable and Protector, or whether he was more of an outsider than most historians have supposed.

Me –

All this makes so much sense to me, thanks Carol. If – just if – Richard already had everything organised, (but obviously not broadcast) for a Constable’s Court – then it would make total sense for him to split the council’s business that day.

The second meeting at the Tower would have included only those wanted as witnesses and members of the court – and of course those about to be arrested.

I have earmarked Croyland as a character in my new book – a fussy self-important little priest who was a member of EdIv’s council or some other position but was then unwanted by Richard – was outcast to the monastery wherever it was, and thus resented his demotion and became spiteful.

Fiction is fun. But if only I could know the truth!

Barbara

All this makes so much sense to me, thanks Carol. If  just if  Richard already had everything organised, (but obviously not broadcast) for a Constable's Court  then it would make total sense for him to split the council's business that day. The second meeting at the Tower would have included only those wanted as witnesses and members of the court  and of course those about to be arrested. I have earmarked Croyland as a character in my new book  a fussy self-important little priest who was a member of EdIv's council or some other position but was then unwanted by Richard  was outcast to the monastery wherever it was, and thus resented his demotion and became spiteful. Fiction is fun. But if only I could know the truth!"

Carol responds:

Thanks. I don't know that he was immediately "outcast to the monastery" since he paraphrases part of the petition to Richard to become king (while condemning it but not denying its truth), but almost certainly he was relegated to some inferior position, which could account in part for his hostility to Richard. At some point in 1486 or earlier, he ended up at Croyland (or Crowland) Abbey, which, perhaps significantly, is in the fen country, as is Ely, Morton's diocese. I suspect that Morton was one of his informants, but I don't have enough information to build a case for that at this point. I believe that Margaret Beaufort also had a manor near Crowland and some influence in the region.

Carol writes –

I don't know that he was immediately "outcast to the monastery" since he paraphrases part of the petition to Richard to become king (while condemning it but not denying its truth), but almost certainly he was relegated to some inferior position, which could account in part for his hostility to Richard. At some point in 1486 or earlier, he ended up at Croyland (or Crowland) Abbey, which, perhaps significantly, is in the fen country, as is Ely, Morton's diocese. I suspect that Morton was one of his informants, but I don't have enough information to build a case for that at this point. I believe that Margaret Beaufort also had a manor near Crowland and some influence in the region.

Me –

You have just given me a hugely interesting addition to my fictional character – thanks a million.

Finding this thread fascinating.

Re Croyland - have you read Alison Hanham's article in The Ricardian a few years back suggesting that the chronicle was not written by a Westminster official at all? Some historian came up with this idea once upon a time and it has been taken as fact ever since. In fact, as I've found when digging into some of the stories a bit deeper, although the chronicle is much concerned with goings on at Westminster it is not terribly accurate on them.

Hanham's view is that a lot of the Westminster stuff could have been picked up by the Abbot and the monks who accompanied him to parliaments and Great Councils. There is, I think, also a possible role for debriefing of visitors to the abbey. On occasions there is certainly an impression of the monks having taken some genuine information and got the wrong end of the stick about it.

I do think the very last bit was indeed written by Bishop Russell when he was there in April 1486, but that's only a couple of pages.

The abbey's patronage is certainly a vital ingredient in the mix as it is with any chronicle. Margaret Beaufort owned the next-door manor of Deeping (inherited from her mother in 1480? would need to check), and the boundary between Deeping and Croyland was in dispute so they needed to stay on the right side of her. MB was also a sister of the abbey.

I find the St Albans Abbey reference fascinating. Reading Dorothea Price's article and seeing an Elizabeth Webbe as being introduced as Prioress of Sopwell in 1480 reminded me of a lady whose fascinating will (written at several sittings as her circumstances changed) I once transcribed. This was Margaret Leynham, who when she was widowed in London) in 1482 went to live, firstly out at Finchley where she wrote her will; she soon got fed up and moved north to live with her sister Katherine and her husband, said husband being none other than Humphrey Stafford of Grafton-by-Bromsgrove who would go on to rebel against Henry VII in 1486. Her she wrote a codicil to her will, indicating her intention to remain living at Grafton and asking to be buried at the Worcester Greyfriars and leaving a bequest to the 'prior' of the place, Dr Peter Webbe. However, her sister Katherine died in childbirth the next month and Katherine decided to leave the Stafford household and relocate yet again, and this time she picked Sopwell Priory. I had often wondered what made her think of Sopwell because there is nothing in her will thus far that indicated any connection to St Albans, but now I wonder if perhaps the prioress, Elizabeth Webbe, was a close relative of Dr Peter Webbe of the Worcester Greyfriars. And it's rather odd that this lady, who comes across as eminently respectable, should have chosen to retire to a virtual brothel, isn't it?

Interestingly, Margaret and her late husband John both named Lord Hastings as supervisors of their wills - John refers to him as 'my singular and special good lord' and Margaret as 'my most assured and special good lord'.

I think Peter Webbe was "the Suffragan of Worcester" noted in the Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle as having said some of the masses at Isabel of Clarence's funeral.

Marie

Re Croyland - have you read Alison Hanham's article in The Ricardian a few years back suggesting that the chronicle was not written by a Westminster official at all? Some historian came up with this idea once upon a time and it has been taken as fact ever since. In fact, as I've found when digging into some of the stories a bit deeper, although the chronicle is much concerned with goings on at Westminster it is not terribly accurate on them.

Hanham's view is that a lot of the Westminster stuff could have been picked up by the Abbot and the monks who accompanied him to parliaments and Great Councils. There is, I think, also a possible role for debriefing of visitors to the abbey. On occasions there is certainly an impression of the monks having taken some genuine information and got the wrong end of the stick about it.

//snip//

Doug here:

Wasn't it expected for a traveller to provide any news to his host of events from elsewhere? A form, in a way, of singing for his supper?

Doug

MARIE wrote concerning ------“suggesting that the chronicle was not written by a Westminster official at all?”

ME-

This is all incredibly interesting. The chronicler has been a potential character for some time as I’ve been planning my new book. But I haven’t read that article and thought the idea that at some stage this was written by Russell had been overturned? (Surely Russell was very pro-Richard?) I also keep hearing/reading that at least two different people were involved over time, also that the earlier parts of the chronicle were more accurate, and only after Richard’s appearance as Protector did the inaccuracies mount up. I have of course read the chronicle itself but find it really hard-going, and I tend to find myself with muddled memories of what was said only days after reading. Perhaps that’s just me. It’s hard to come out with a concrete conclusion – but all the information regarding the Abbey and the MB connection particularly helpful. Thanks enormously.

Barbara

"This is all incredibly interesting. The chronicler has been a potential character for some time as I've been planning my new book. But I haven't read that article and thought the idea that at some stage this was written by Russell had been overturned? (Surely Russell was very pro-Richard?) I also keep hearing/reading that at least two different people were involved over time, also that the earlier parts of the chronicle were more accurate, and only after Richard's appearance as Protector did the inaccuracies mount up."

Marie here:

These points are all linked. Russell's name came into the frame because of two things:-

1) The note at the end that it was written in ten days and completed on April the something 1486 - Russell is known to have been in the abbey in April 1486 presiding over the transfer to the Abbey of the parish of Bringhurst.

2) A marginal note against the chronicle's mention of a particular embassy to Burgundy to the effect that the ambassador was "he who compiled this history."

No one seems to believe now that the entire continuation was written in April 1486, partly because study has shown up two places where the account is concluded and then starts again. If we call the first chunk A, then this ends immediately after Bosworth, where it says that there is to be no more written because it is not a good idea to write about the living, but then it picks up again (account B) giving us a gushing notice of the royal marriage, and concludes with everybody living happily ever after. Up to here it's anti-Richard and pro Henry. But then it starts again (account C), with a comment by the writer that he doesn't know who the author of the preceding text was but he would like to say a few words of his own. He then proceeds to criticise Henry's attainder of Richard's followers by backdating his reign, he records King Henry's recent visit to Lincoln on his progress, he reminisces about Cardinal Beaufort's death in Winchester in 1447, and end the political content with an account of an attempt by Richard's old supporters to kidnap Henry when he was in York, ad the hangings that resulted. Then there is a summary of the Bringhurst proceedings, the statement that all this was done in 10 days in April 1486, and the thing finishes.

It is this last bit, C, that I believe actually was written by Bishop Russell. He was a Hampshire man, and was a student at Winchester at the time of Cardinal Beaufort's death; he was Henry's host when he visited Lincoln; the account is critical of Henry; and most importantly Russell was at Crowland in April 1486. But he can't be the author of the preceding stuff because he tells us he isn't.

The most recent translators, Pronay and Cox, discuss the authorship question, but their observations are not, I feel, very helpful. Their claim that the account is accurate up to Richard's accession isn't right. It's very inaccurate, for example, regarding the Thomas Burdet affair and a hopeless chronological muddle regarding the Clarence and Gloucester quarrel.

'A' starts with a statement that the earlier account was written by the prior, who didn't know what was going on in the outside world, and that this writer intends to put that right. He then starts right back in 1459, giving a new summary of the last ten years covered by the pervious continuation, and it goes on pretty good up to King Edward's reinstatement in 1471. Then the quality of the information plummets. Is this Russell signing off and the Abbey monks attempting to keep the history going under their own steam?

A lot of historians still assume A was written at one sitting after Bosworth, but I don't find this convincing. There seem to be lots of separate bits, and there are accounts of abbey business interspersed. I think it works best to imagine lots of notes on loose sheets being set in order and written up into the register every few years.

I think there's a good possibility that there was a regular informant who worked at Westminster, possibly with the Exchequer rather than Chancery as has been suggested because he's obsessed with how much treasure the King had . But if so then he either gave the monks his accounts orally or they edited and introduced errors into the notes he left them, and added stuff of their own.

One reason I don't believe there was a single Westminster author is that every attempt to identify him falls down at some point. There is simply no one who fits all the criteria at every point in the text.

Barbara:

" I have of course read the chronicle itself but find it really hard-going, and I tend to find myself with muddled memories of what was said only days after reading. Perhaps that's just me. It's hard to come out with a concrete conclusion  but all the information regarding the Abbey and the MB connection particularly helpful. Thanks enormously."

Marie:

I have the same problem. If I study it hard and take lots of notes then I sort of get a grip on the chronicle, but after a bit it all muddles up in my head again. I think that in itself is probably a clue. Also, I don't know if you'd noticed how focused on events at the Brecon end of things the account of Buckingham's Rebellion is - and how detailed. Did the monks' account of that come from someone who was with Buckingham?

Carol wrote of the Fourth Continuator*:

"However, he's critical of Richard (and Edward) at one point, saying that they were far less restrained than Henry in attainting traitors.(Then, again, they were anointed kings at the time and Henry wasn't, a point that the fourth continuator, as he's called, fails to make."

*It's annoying that there is no agreed nomenclature for the various bits of Crowland. What was called the Second Continuation became the Third Continuation under Pronay and Cox, and it all depends how many restarts you think you can identify after that.

Marie responds:

Remember he was writing under Henry VII, also he was an educated man and probably trying to be as fair as possible. Also, Henry's supporters may have frequently pointed out to him that the numbers Henry attainted were relatively small even if the circumstances were dubious.

Carol wrote:

"That's one reason I don't think he's Russell though he's certainly in a position to know what happened in Henry's Parliament and to be critical of it. The other is that he mentions Russell by name in the third person: "While these commotions [risings against Henry in the North] were still going on in the north, there came to the house of Croyland the reverend man, John Russell, bishop of Lincoln, and stayed there the space of a whole month, making payment every week for himself and a retinue of twenty persons, on such terms as were deemed satisfactory by both parties."

Marie responds:

I don't find the first point a problem at all. As regards the mention of Russell in the third person, there are three things to consider. The first is that writing of oneself in the third person is a classical technique - Caesar's 'Gallic Wars', for instance. The second is that this continuation, like the others, was written anonymously - I doubt whether thewriter would have dared to be so forthright about Henry's doings in parliament if he had put his name to his work. The third is that, actually, I think it quite likely that Russell wrote the political continuation, and his clerk wrote the add-on about Bringhurst. Making a written record of the Bringhurst proceedings would have been the job of a clerk of the court or equivalent, and Russell may have asked him to enter it into the abbey register. The description of Russell's visit that you quote is placed immediately after the political content of the Fourth Continuation and immediately before the Calendar of the Bringhurst appropriation. In other word's it's an introduction to the Bringhurst record and so may have been written by the same clerk.

The reasons I think the political content of the Fourth Continuation is probably the work of Russell himself, rather than an underling, are:-

a) It is a very confident piece of writing. This man had no doubt of his ability to understand the rights and wrongs of what had been done in parliament. He says he "daily find[s] something worth recording" as if he was close to the great events. I don't think this is a lowly individual. He talks about the parliament as though he was very familiar with the proceedings : "so much was transacted (I wish it had all been done well) that the scope of this history is not fitted to take it all adequately into account." Russell would have sat in parliament; his clerks wouldn't.

b) He is greatly affected by the death of Cardinal Bourchier: again, this suggests someone who knew him well.

c) He describes Cardinal Beaufort's death-bed scene at Winchester in April 1447, and how he called all the local clergy in to his sick room. Prof. Henry Kelly has pointed out that Russell was a student at Winchester College from 1443 until the summer of 1447. It would be some coincidence if there were also other members of Russell's entourage who had been in Winchester when Cardinal Beaufort died. For me this is the most persuasive piece of evidence.

I think Russell could also be the author of the very first section of the 2nd/3rd Continuation, if only because of that marginal note about the embassy and because said author randomly tells us that Chertsey, where Henry VI was buried, lay in the diocese of Winchester. Perhaps one day we'll know enough about his movements to be able to tell whether it is logistically possible.

But it's all a matter of personal opinion.

Maie

Marie wrote : a wonderfully clear and helpful summary regarding the authorship of the Crowland Chronicle.

ME: Thanks so very much, Marie. My character is now coming to life – and the authorship question is making significantly more sense.

So I can now leave Russell and that later portion of the chronicle probably written by him out of my own equations, but simply remember the facts for my own interest.

I have taken so many notes over the past couple of years – and now find – with fading eyesight – I can no longer read my own writing. One of those typical frustrations. Your explanation puts it all back together.

The idea that one contributor was with Buckingham is especially interesting. This helps so much – a million thanks.

Barbara

Marie wrote:

"I don't find the first point a problem at all. As regards the mention of Russell in the third person, there are three things to consider. The first is that writing of oneself in the third person is a classical technique - Caesar's 'Gallic Wars', for instance. The second is that this continuation, like the others, was written anonymously - I doubt whether the writer would have dared to be so forthright about Henry's doings in parliament if he had put his name to his work. The third is that, actually, I think it quite likely that Russell wrote the political continuation, and his clerk wrote the add-on about Bringhurst.[snip some good arguments for the sake of space]"

Carol responds:

Interesting. I'm almost convinced that Russell wrote the Fourth continuation. At any rate, it's certainly possible. (I was and remain convinced that he didn't write the Third continuation, but I don't know enough about Cox and Pronay's candidates to argue for or against them.) I suppose the remark about the number of attainders under Henry VII being "moderate" compared to those under Richard and Edward is not exactly criticism, more a statement of fact (ignoring the pardons that Richard later issued), but it ignores the fact I mentioned earlier that Richard and Edward were anointed kings and Henry was just a claimant to the throne based on "conquest" (or, less kindly, regicide). The men he attainted had fought for an anointed king and were therefore *not* traitors. That knowledge may be the reason for Henry's (or his Parliament's) "moderation.

Whoever the Fourth Continuator was, he was certainly brave to be as critical as he was of Henry (and his Parliament) during Henry's lifetime, and I don't blame him for remaining anonymous. Your suggestion that a clerk wrote the third-person comment on Russell is worth considering though I'm not entirely convinced. I'll keep an open mind on Russell as Fourth Continuator, but (for the record) when I talk about the Croyland Chronicler ("Croyland" for short), I'm talking about the Third Continuator, who clearly was not Russell (and may, as you suggested, have been more than one person). In other words, for future reference (I'm talking to the group as a whole here) when I'm critical of the Croyland Chronicler and his unreliability, I'm not talking about Russell (who I believe remained loyal to Richard and who certainly would have been more accurate and less critical of an administration of which he was an important part) or the Fourth Continuation.

What happened to the missing final pages, Marie, do you know? And what do you think of my suggestion that "this was written at Croyland . . . in the space of ten days" refers to the quoted poem rather than the third continuation as a whole? That would make sense if the Third Continuation is the patchwork you suggest.

On a side note: The bit about "no agreed nomenclature" that you quoted wasn't mine, only the comments about Russell and the contents of the Fourth Continuation. I think someone else may have quoted me without leaving a space between her comments and mine, but I can't go back to check without losing my post.

Carol

Carol wrote:

"What happened to the missing final pages, Marie, do you know? And what do you think of my suggestion that "this was written at Croyland . . . in the space of ten days" refers to the quoted poem rather than the third continuation as a whole? That would make sense if the Third Continuation is the patchwork you suggest."

Marie replies:

I've no idea what happened to the missing pages. To make it worse, the original MS was badly damaged by fire and only the first bit of the 2nd/3rd is now readable, and for all the rest (including all of Edward IV's second reign and Richard III) we're relying on a 17th century edition. I wouldn't be surprised if some bits may have been torn out because they were politically unacceptable, perhaps at the time of the Dissolution or when the Chronicle got used by Vergil (many historians think it was one of his sources). I have this idea about the Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle, of which we seem to be completely lacking the original, because it stops so abruptly but what there is contains is textual reference to something that happened several years later..

The poem has been shown by Julian Luxford to be one that was doing the rounds after Bosworth, so it wasn't written at Croyland in the space of ten days. That, and a better translation of it, has also put paid to the theories of those who believed the continuator was also telling us his name was Richard.

Alison Hanham's and Luxford's articles were both published in the 2007 Ricardian, and can be downloaded here:-

Richard III Society | THE RICARDIAN INDEX 1974 - 2012

Carol wrote:

"On a side note: The bit about "no agreed nomenclature" that you quoted wasn't mine, only the comments about Russell and the contents of the Fourth Continuation. I think someone else may have quoted me without leaving a space between her comments and mine, but I can't go back to check without losing my post."

Marie replies:

Sorry, that was my sloppy setting out. Those were actually my words, and they were supposed to be a footnote to my own lead-in to the quote from you, hence the asterisk. I realised after I'd posted that it was as clear as mud..

I just want to say how fascinating the situation regarding the authorship of the Crowland Chronicle actually is.

It is the Third Continuation that particularly interests me, and the personality of the author/s, will make a truly awful and fascinating character in a work of fiction – mine, of course!!

But it’s the truth of the authorship which is so interesting and I am more and more engrossed. Everyone’s input is increasingly absorbing. I now have a new folder entitled “Marie, Carol and Crowland” and you’re all cuddled up in there together.

Cheers, Barbara

So how do we know that Hastings wasn’t tried first? Because Henry’s paid liars say so and because they destroyed the records?
Richard was Constable of England and Lord Protector of the realm – he had the authority, with the council, to conduct trials. He also had the authority to pronounce sentence summarily if Hastings was caught in the act, which may have been what happened – turning up with weapons, for instance.

“Catesby was a relative of Eleanor”? Look at “Catesbys” under Files and there is no evidence of this.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 31 October 2014 01:08
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hasting's execution

Hello, I am new to the group, but I have to say that Hastings execution was one of the most shocking things in history. If Richard felt that he was justified then he should haveput William Hastings on trial, not given orders for him to be taken outside and summarily executed. Richard had been given information by Shillington and by William Catesby that made him realise that the faithful Chamberlain of his brother Edward would not support his bid for the throne. In his book Hancock has suggested that the information concerned the contract between Edward and Eleanor Talbot Butler, thus that Hastings knew that the boys Prince Richard of York and the young Edward V were not legitimate, information that had kept Richard from his perceived right to the crown. William Catesby was a relative of Eleanor and a member of Hastings household; he had inside knowledge, and Bishop Shillington was to confirm his knowledge. Richard became convinced having spoken to Catesby that Hastings was both a traitor as a friend and would betray him should he now seek to take the crown. On the morning of Friday 13th June 1483 Richard gathered two seperate councils, one at Westminster the other at the Tower; Hastings and Lord Stanley were at the one that we are intereste in: the Tower. I must also point out that here the Tower is used as a royal palace as well as a place for state prisoners and not the aweful place that it was to become in Tudor times. The council also met here in times of political crisis and urgency and it was a garrison and fortress. When he first arrived Richard was in good spirits, but he withdrew for a time and on his return he came to the council chamber in an angry mood, cool and calm, but angry. What happened in the meantime? Apart from the fact that he ate strewberries the sources are silent on what happened, but there are clues. We do know that at some point that morning or the day before Richard spoke with Catesby and gained information about the marriage of Edward and Eleanor. Was he asking Catesby if Hastings knew and if he would support his move now for the crown? Was the answer to the first yes and the second no? Richard decided that he could no longer trust Hastings and that he had been betrayed by him. The return to the council chamber was fraught with stress and anger; he addressed Hastings asking him what he could do to someone who had committed treason and Hastings more or less pronounced his own sentence that such a person deserved death. A signal was given and the armed guards outside ran in and arrested Hastings, Morton and Stanley. Hastings was given time to confess, led outside and beheaded on the nearest thing that they could find, a log of wood.

But why? Richard and Buckingham had to have panicked at that point for the noise outside told them that the news of Hastings murder had gotten out, and people wanted answers. To appease the crowds and to justify their actions Richard had news put that Hastings had plotted with the Woodvilles to remove and to kill both himself and the Duke. The Woodvilles did not support the appointment of Richard as Lord Protector and so would certainly have wanted him removed, but would they have plotted to kill him, and with someone who hated them, Hastings? Buckingham hated the Queen Dowager, Elizabeth Woodville as he had been married as a young teenager to her sister Katherine and despite bearing him three children, the marriage was not a happy one. Hastings had a personal dislike of Elizabeth , so Hancock believes that the evidence does not support a charge of him plotting against Richard or Buckingham. But the fact that Richard believed that he had personally been betrayed by Hastings and that he had withheld evidence that could have smoothly and legitimatelt confirmed him as King on his brothers death in April 1483 was for him legitmate enough reason to have Hastings arrested for treason. It has been argued that as Richard was not King but Protector, that Hastings could not commit treason against him, but a Lord Protector is ipso facto King. Richad was going to use that position to forbid and order as any King. He also believed that at this moment, because of the information he had received, he was in fact now King, in all but name and crowning. Richard felt he had the right to arrest and execute Hastings as a traitor and he had acted wisely and justly. Should he not have place him on trial? Yes. Was Hastings murdered? In one sense, yes, in another, the question is open. Was he wise to execute Hastings . From Richard's point of view yes; for Hastings would have stood against him and may have led a rebellion as Buckingham did. Once Richard was crowned Hastings would have moved against him, then that would have been treason. I think Richard was wrong to execute him in this way, but I feel that Richard believed that Hastings had betrayed him as a friend and would betray him further. For Richard, Hastings was too dangerous to keep alive. A trial, however, would have been more in keeping with the lover of law that Richard has become known for.

Absolutely agree with what has been said. We do not have the records of the Constable's court, so if Richard had tried Hastings under his powers as Lord Constable we wouldn't have a record of the proceedings.

Hancock has relied for his understanding of that morning's events on More's account. Also, I understand that his claim about the relationship between Catesby and Eleanor Butler isn't correct. It was someone else on the forum who looked into this.

We don't actually know what was said to whom in previous meetings - this is all surmise based on a few casual remarks in extant letters that were written that month.

Also, this was the 15th century. Edward IV did far worse, and Henry VII makes Richard III look like a choirboy.

Welcome to the forum.

Marie

Hi again, new member (it would be much nicer if we had a name to call you. If you don't want to give your real one away you could always make something up),

We're not basing the idea of a trial on any of the articles to which you refer, or on the idea - mistaken as I think we all agree - that Hastings was actually executed on 20th June. Those articles were really discussing the possibility of a "normal" trial, say in King's Bench, which would have required a few days from start of proceedings to execution. It's a long time since I've read these papers, but what their authors seem to have missed, if my memory serves me, is the fact that, if Hastings had been caught in the act, Richard could have invoked his powers as either Constable and Protector and condemned him quite legally with no delay. I'm not a legal expert, but I understand that summary execution was quite in order for a self-confessed traitor, and it was the way that the Constable's court worked. I understand that Annette Carson has been researching the question of Richard's powers as Protector and Constable, and that lengthy paper on the subject may be coming out, so we wait and see.

I would personally agree that having Hastings condemned and executed on the same day was not good form, although it was by no means a unique case. Personal feelings must have played a big part, but I don't agree that this was necessarily all done "on the spare [sic] of the moment."

I do feel that you've set up quite a few straw men in your arguments above - i.e. attributed to us views which we simply don't hold and which you can easily knock down. For instance, if you had looked back through the whole thread as another member suggested you would have seen Mancini's dating of Hasting's death after the delivery of Richard Duke of York from sanctuary pointed up as one of his major errors. If you are an historian as you say (history student?), then you will presumably be aware of just how unreliable all the chronicles and histories are; for instance, Vergil actually postdates Buckingham's Rebellion to 1484. These documents cannot be assessed on their own for that reason; we have to try to find more solid sources against which to weigh them. It's no good saying 'More is all we've got so I'll just believe him.' There *are* other sources, though as regards Hastings' execution those that have so far been found are too meagre. On this forum we've recently discussed the register of the Abbot of St Albans, who commented that Hastings deserved his fate. There were, in other words, voices that were not hostile to Richard's action, but because of the brevity of Richard's reign we don't hear much from them. You certainly couldn't publish or publicise any work that was pro-Richard in Tudor times, and this is why there was a veritable storm of interest in reassessing his reign in the early 17th century. Richard is not unique in suffering from this. No chronicles favourable to Richard II were tolerated after his deposition, and people couldn't write praising Henry VI's government during the reign of Edward IV; free speech was not seen as a right in those days. It would therefore be a very naïve historian who believed we could learn all we need to know about Richard from sources written after his death.

Croyland is sometimes accurate, sometimes not. He tells us Hastings was executed without trial, but he says the same of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey whereas Rous tells us they were tried before the Earl of Northumberland. Rous' version makes more sense because, as has been pointed out by I think Carol, there was no point in moving all these men to Pontefract if there was to be no trial; they could easily have been beheaded where they were. And Northumberland was certainly at Pontefract at the time in question. So we can't take Croyland's statement about Hastings' lack of trial at face value; whoever wrote that passage was almost certainly not at the Tower that morning and was not a lawyer.

Unfortunately, we don't have an account of the protectorate written by an insider, someone who actually knew what was going on and was prepared to tell all he knew. When you say Richard acted out of anger, you are reliant on Vergil and More. They may be right, and if Hastings and others had actually made an attempt on Richard that morning they almost certainly are right - but we must also bear in mind the evidence of the letters Richard wrote to York and Lord Neville in the days leading up to that Tower meeting: in these he states his awareness of a plot against the lives of himself and Buckingham. It is therefore quite within the bounds of probability that he expected some sort of attempt would be made against the two of them on Friday 13th and, anger or no anger, had his response prepared.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought W. Catesby was the son of his father's first wife, Philippa Bishopston. Besides, this is a game one can play almost endlessly because the leading families were so intermarried. For instance, Catesby's grandfather-in-law had married as his second wife Margaret Beaufort's half-sister Elizabeth St John (I may have the details wrong here, but you get the idea). What Hancock has not produced is any evidence that Catesby knew anything about the precontract. It's merely a speculative theory. We have not been dismissing Hancock "just because we do not agree with his findings" but because he has produced no findings that actually tell us what was going on. What he's produced is an interesting theory which may be proved or disproved at a later date, but that's as far as it goes.

Marie

Let us just think first about the sources you name:

Mancini, who left England and wrote from the continent, relying on unnamed informants and who was badly translated by Charles Armstrong in C20.

Morton, who was arrested with Hastings et al, then released into Buckingham’s custody and who we assume to be More’s source at least thirty years later, because More was four or five at the time of the events. Do mature historians really take the word of a co-conspirator, released because he was a bishop and because Richard decided that, however many people were convicted that day, one head would suffice? The same Morton who gained financially as well as socially when “Tudor” translated him to Canterbury , therefore being a paid liar? The trial records disappeared, as with so many documents favourable to Richard, after his time. This account, via More describes Richard baring his “withered arm”, which had miraculously healed by the time of his exhumation. Therefore, any evidence against there having been a trial lacks credibility.

The date is not material to this point but it happened in June, not July.

Now you describe Catesby’s stepmother as Lady Eleanor Talbot’s first cousin, but such large families did not always know each other and there is no evidence that they did in this case, which has no lineal relationship as the ODNB has our William’s mother as Phillippa of Bishopstone. In all matters relating to Lady Eleanor, Ashdown-Hill is surely the ultimate authority and he gives Stillington as the probable source of the pre-contract information.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 01 November 2014 09:58
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hasting's execution

There is no evidence that Hastings did have a trial or did not, but the contemporary evidence supports the date of his execution being 13th July and I am aware that there has been debates on this via varied Ricardian historians on whether or not he had due process as some sources suggest that the date of his demise was much later; up to 7 days in fact. As one commentator has pointed out the sources are less than reliable, although stating that Henry Tudor simply paid all of the authors to lie is a bit unprofessional and hardly substantiated as most of those writing on this event are not paid by Henry Tudor but wrote at the time or shortly afterwards when Henry was not in the country. Unfortunately, the only source that we do have that reflects an eye witness is not considered reliable, but it is the most useful evidence that we have as it gives us the nearest piece of information. I agree that many of you will consider that Mancini and Morton are biased and we cannot trust what they say, that does not make them liars paid by Henry Tudor, it makes them simply conveying information that all historians should either try to examine with an open mind, and as a historian this is what I attempt to do. We need to ask questions of all sources; those that are favourable as well as those that are not. Some of the same historians that are called liars are also favourable at times, so you cannot have it both ways; you need to weigh up all of the evidence and this is what Peter Hancock has done, even if you do not agree that he is the last word on this matter. I have read other authorities and have come to my own conclusions which I am entitled to express, even if you disagree, which is your right of course and I respect that.

I believe that the argument that Hastings may have had a trial is based on those sources that seem to indicate that Hastings was not executed while Richard was angry and gave the order but after things had calmed down and due process may have been allowed in some form. Alison Hanham wrote an excellent redaction of this event but this has been challenged by Sutton and Hammond, and others have also revisited the event in many works. Modern historians conclude that the Crowland Chronicle which was contemporary, if putting Richard in a poor light on some issues also gives him a good press in others. It was accurate in the date of Hastings death and this has been confirmed by other evidence, there is nothing contemporary that contradicts this evidence. The work stopped on his buildings on 16th because they were informed that Hastings had been killed. I also believe that Richard had some justification or at least believed that he had as Hastings in his eyes had betrayed him, both as someone that he had hoped to trust and who would support his lawful claim to the throne, but had reason to doubt based on information he had received; the source is speculation, but he had heard something that had made him charge Hastings with treason, and as friend, or at least someone he regarded as potential supporter. Richard was acting in good faith; he had the authority to hear a case and probably to execute Hastings , but he acted out of anger and not out of due consideration when he acted on the spare of the moment. There is no evidence that Hastings had conspired with the Woodvilles, and there is no evidence of any trial or due process; we can only judge on the evidence we do have, which shows that Richard ordered for Hastings to be executed on 13th June, without a trial, and on evidence that he believed, but which has not been brought into the light of history. May-be it is not the most shocking thing in history, but it is still shocking in my reasoned opinion and I am not going to change my mind. I have read and studied this extensively and come to a reasoned conclusion based on this. Not all Ricardians agree about what happened on this fatal date, probably as the evidence is dodgy or cannot be totally relied upon. What we historians can do is make a judgement of history based on the evidence that we do have; there may not be anything that concludes to our satisfaction that Hastings did not have a trial, there is certainly no evidence at all that he did, We can only make the reasonable conclusion based on what we do know and what others have researched from the contemporary evidence is that Hastings was charged with treason, Richard believed he had been betrayed, Richard claimed that there was evidence of a conspiracy,this evidence was not produced and Hastings was taken out, given some time to prepare and executed, not days later, but that same day. It does not sit with what else we know about Richard, but if he felt as betrayed as he did then that was his justification, to execute someone who would stand against him and he had betrayed him by concealling information that would have legalized his claim to the throne from the outset. Richard may have had a legal claim through the princes being illegitimate, but he did not conclusively have evidence for this until now; now he also learned that Hastings had known the truth and concealed it from him; his anger was such that he was not thinking with a cool head, and that sense of betrayal made him act as he may not have done previously. But now Richard was acting as a King, and Kings cannot and did not allow such betrayals to go unpunished. Summary executions had been part of the culture of the Wars of the Roses; why should Richard feel the need to act any differently than his own brother Edward. Henry would also ironically execute William Catesby with impunity after Bosworth, and even the so called trials in Tudor and Stuart England were no better as the King and not the jury decided the outcome. I am merely saying it is shocking because it goes against what we would expect from a man with Richard's sense of justice; which is why some people believe there had to have been a trial of some kind. The evidence has been examined and does not point to a trial. That is what makes it shocking; as a modern historian I cannot ignore the reality of what happened; as a Ricardian I have to ask why and many other questions as my original post pointed out; if anyone bothered to read it correctly. I feel I have put a balanced and reasoned argument: the rest I leave to you to make up your own mind.

Finally I am correct in my statement that William Catesby is related to Eleanor Butler. Her father was one of nine children and his sister Alice, her aunt, who married Thomas Barre Their child Joan Barre, married as her second husband the father of this William Catesby, also called William, although she was much older than her first cousin Eleanor. The son our William Catesby is her second cousin. So stating that there is no evidence that she was not as one commentator has said is nonsense. William Catesby knew both parties, he also was well aquainted with Hastings and was a probable source of the information that led to the death of Hastings . This has been researched and debated in Hancocks book and other sources by other historians, and Hancock is a Ricardian so he cannot be dismissed just because people do not agree with his findings. Catesby had his own reasons for bringing this information to Richard; that Richard then acted on it with such ruthlessness is may be out of character, but if he felt his honour was threatened and that he was preventing a real and present danger then by his authority he also believed he had no choice and was justified. That he acted with such speed is hard to reason with other actions but he was not a saint, he was a human being and as such he was given to the same emotions as everyone else, and we do not always act rationally or how others hope we should all of the time. Richard was a man of honour, Hastings was not the best character he knew; such an affrontary could not go unpunished; he felt betrayed and at risk, that is why he acted with speed, ruthlessness and to ensure that others would not make the mistake of taking him for granted.

Marie wrote,,,'I would personally agree that having Hasting's condemned and executed on the same day was not good form but it was by no means unique'... It went on to an enormous amount in the aftermath of battle..would this be considered somehow less worse than Hastings execution? Personally I can't see why...it appears to have been par for the course. For example after Tewkesbury....it is my understanding that certain men were taken out of Tewkesbury Abbey by the Yorkists...Somerset and some others..tried before Richard in his capacity as constable and the duke of Norfolk taken to the marketplace and beheaded the same day. Wollop!..This is just one example....and I have read that Richard's father was executed after Wakefield....I'm not sure if this is correct but there are many other examples,. I have never fully understood the angst with regard to Hastings...if you don't want to get burnt don't go into the kitchen as they say. I feel it's just a fine piece of mud to throw at Richard because there is a shortage of the real stuff...well not the type that sticks anyway...Eileen

Lyn-Marie wrote to Maria:

" I will read the sources you highlight further, but I will not change my mind. You also ask further about William Catesby, he was the second husband of Joan Barre, and their son, our William was Eleanor Butler Talbot second cousin"

Marie responds:

We all have our own take on the history of the period, but can I put in a plea that you don't say in advance of reading new material that you will not change your mind? Maybe what you read will give you no reason to change your mind, but we all have to be prepared to change our opinions in the light of new evidence otherwise our understanding of the period will never advance and there's no point in anyone doing any research.

Another member has confirmed that Philippa Balderston was Catesby's mother according to the ODNB, and this is a very modern and reputable source (the entry on Catesby was written by Rosemary Horrox). What is your source for his mother having been Joan Barre?

"We all have our own take on the history of the period, but can I put in a plea that you don't say in advance of reading new material that you will not change your mind?"

Carol responds:

I second the plea. It's amazing how much a person can learn from this group and from additional reading. To take just two examples, I have gone from thinking that Buckingham killed the "Princes" to believing (provisionally) that Sir James Tyrell escorted them to safety in Gipping and later, Burgundy (the elder boy may have died from natural causes), and from regarding Ankarette Twynyho as the innocent victim of George of Clarence's deranged grief to considering the possibility that Ankarette did poison Isabel Neville. I'm not certain on either point, but I like being open to new possibilities, especially when I'm confronted with new and compelling evidence. What's the point of discussion, after all, if it doesn't help us to clarify and sometimes rethink our positions? And why bother to read more books if we already "know" all the answers? We might as well just read Sir Thomas More's version of events and call it fact. But then we'd all be clones of Alison Weir.

Carol

Dear Lyn-Marie,

Re your last two posts.

"you don't have to be in love with Richard III" and we ought to accept that not everybody will be as blinkered as us! Just another straw man argument and insult to people you don't know. You are new to the forum, so you may not be aware that we try to prevent debates descending to the level of personal attack.

Also, as far as I'm aware, no one on the forum had questioned whether Sir W Catesby's second marriage to Joan Barre took place. What I and another had questioned was whether she was "our" William Catesby's mother - I had asked for your source for this. Perhaps you misread my post. I would still be interested in the answer.

Marie

Horrox on our William Catesby:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4884?docPos=3

Note that he was at least 32 when his father died – he may have been married and living independently before his father remarried. Similarly, Hastings is often given erroneously as an Edward III descendant because of a stepmother in the equation.

PS Women are generally referred to in historical circles by their maiden names ie Lady Eleanor Talbot, as the daughter of an Earl.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 01 November 2014 23:26
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hasting's execution

Lyn-Marie wrote to Maria:

" I will read the sources you highlight further, but I will not change my mind. You also ask further about William Catesby, he was the second husband of Joan Barre, and their son, our William was Eleanor Butler Talbot second cousin"

Marie responds:

We all have our own take on the history of the period, but can I put in a plea that you don't say in advance of reading new material that you will not change your mind? Maybe what you read will give you no reason to change your mind, but we all have to be prepared to change our opinions in the light of new evidence otherwise our understanding of the period will never advance and there's no point in anyone doing any research.

Another member has confirmed that Philippa Balderston was Catesby's mother according to the ODNB, and this is a very modern and reputable source (the entry on Catesby was written by Rosemary Horrox). What is your source for his mother having been Joan Barre?

Marie wrote to Lyn-Marie:

"We all have our own take on the history of the period, but can I put in a plea that you don't say in advance of reading new material that you will not change your mind?"

Carol responds:

I second the plea. It's amazing how much a person can learn from this group and from additional reading. To take just two examples, I have gone from thinking that Buckingham killed the "Princes" to believing (provisionally) that Sir James Tyrell escorted them to safety in Gipping and later, Burgundy (the elder boy may have died from natural causes), and from regarding Ankarette Twynyho as the innocent victim of George of Clarence's deranged grief to considering the possibility that Ankarette did poison Isabel Neville. I'm not certain on either point, but I like being open to new possibilities, especially when I'm confronted with new and compelling evidence. What's the point of discussion, after all, if it doesn't help us to clarify and sometimes rethink our positions? And why bother to read more books if we already "know" all the answers? We might as well just read Sir Thomas More's version of events and call it fact. But then we'd all be clones of Alison Weir.

Carol

Dear Lyn-Marie,

Re your last two posts.

"you don't have to be in love with Richard III" and we ought to accept that not everybody will be as blinkered as us! Just another straw man argument and insult to people you don't know. You are new to the forum, so you may not be aware that we try to prevent debates descending to the level of personal attack.

Also, as far as I'm aware, no one on the forum had questioned whether Sir W Catesby's second marriage to Joan Barre took place. What I and another had questioned was whether she was "our" William Catesby's mother - I had asked for your source for this. Perhaps you misread my post. I would still be interested in the answer.

Marie

I didn't come to this forum because "I am in love with Richard III" at all. I knew nothing very much about Richard, but having followed the whole discovery of his body as closely as possible, and realising that despite a passionate interest in history I had a very marked space where the late medieval should be, this forum and its incredibly knowledgeable members seemed an excellent place to start.
Despite reading everything I can find about Richard, and finding his story fascinating, I am still uncertain about what I really think he was like, or what his actions may have been.
I have no certainties. I do think that many off his actions were admirable, and that much of the evidence of his wrongdoing just isn't there, but I just keep learning, and keep an open mind.
I do know that the society's research and outlook has been proved to be the right one in recent years, and should be applauded for that.
But a serious historian should have no place for "love" in their view of their subject.
Isn't it research and clear analysis that is needed?

Jess From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 02/11/2014 11:29
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Hasting's execution

Dear Lyn-Marie,

Re your last two posts.

"you don't have to be in love with Richard III" and we ought to accept that not everybody will be as blinkered as us! Just another straw man argument and insult to people you don't know. You are new to the forum, so you may not be aware that we try to prevent debates descending to the level of personal attack.

Also, as far as I'm aware, no one on the forum had questioned whether Sir W Catesby's second marriage to Joan Barre took place. What I and another had questioned was whether she was "our" William Catesby's mother - I had asked for your source for this. Perhaps you misread my post. I would still be interested in the answer.

Marie

I didn't come to this forum because "I am in love with Richard III" at all. I knew nothing very much about Richard, but having followed the whole discovery of his body as closely as possible, and realising that despite a passionate interest in history I had a very marked space where the late medieval should be, this forum and its incredibly knowledgeable members seemed an excellent place to start.
Despite reading everything I can find about Richard, and finding his story fascinating, I am still uncertain about what I really think he was like, or what his actions may have been.
I have no certainties. I do think that many off his actions were admirable, and that much of the evidence of his wrongdoing just isn't there, but I just keep learning, and keep an open mind.
I do know that the society's research and outlook has been proved to be the right one in recent years, and should be applauded for that.
But a serious historian should have no place for "love" in their view of their subject.
Isn't it research and clear analysis that is needed?

Jess From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 02/11/2014 11:29
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Hasting's execution

Dear Lyn-Marie,

Re your last two posts.

"you don't have to be in love with Richard III" and we ought to accept that not everybody will be as blinkered as us! Just another straw man argument and insult to people you don't know. You are new to the forum, so you may not be aware that we try to prevent debates descending to the level of personal attack.

Also, as far as I'm aware, no one on the forum had questioned whether Sir W Catesby's second marriage to Joan Barre took place. What I and another had questioned was whether she was "our" William Catesby's mother - I had asked for your source for this. Perhaps you misread my post. I would still be interested in the answer.

Marie

Jess...I am afraid this "being in love with Richard" is the same old chestnut trotted out again and again and it is so bleeding tedious...it goes hand in hand with the label 'Ricardian' and Im sure is intended to make as look like a lot of deluded old crones with purple rinses, incontinent/bladder problems..depending on your sex...and slightly smelling of boiled cabbage..I would ignore it if I were you..as my old dad would say 'it's a load of old baloney'...EIleen

Hilary wrote 'I do think there was more to the Twynhoes than a ill treated widow'....(or similar ...)
I believe if we knew the whole truth our minds would boggle.....because sometimes what we read just simply don't seem to ring true...it seems quite absurd....as Marie posted the other day..if it walks like a duck..if it looks like a duck...or similar..it probably is a duck...Eileen

Just adding my two pence --

As for the sainted Sir Thomas More (he of the log), his account of the life and times of Richard and his kin has so many basic errors in it -- many of which were repeated over and over by other writers -- that I've come to wonder if he deliberately wrote it to be as obviously ridiculous as possible, being that writing and publishing a truly honest account of a Yorkist king was not possible under the execution-happy Henrys VII and VIII, who infamously didn't leave alive enough Plantagenets or their adherents "to p--- against a wall" in the words of Sir Thomas Craig.

Tamara

Johanne wrote:


"Yes, that's what that [articulated] means. Apparently the Cathedral has agreed with many of the requests of the Society. The only thing the Society indicates was not agreed to is that they won't agree to move the bones to a place of sanctity before placing them in the coffin."

Carol responds:

Thanks for quoting the excerpt. I just want to add that "articulated skeleton" normally refers to one found in the grave in the position it would be in if placed there with ligaments intact. Richard's skeleton when found was an articulated skeleton (though, of course, there were some differences from the way it would have appeared in life). As used here, it means laid out flat in roughly the same position as it would have been in the grave, but it will probably be more like the way it was laid out on the table by Jo Appleby and company. Still, that's a lot better than jumbled bones in an ossuary.

Carol

So your “evidence” that Hastings wasn’t tried is, again, two paid “Tudor” liars”?

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of poohlandeva
Sent: 11 November 2014 19:17
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hasting's execution

Just to respond briefly to Maria and others who mentioned some more sources I could read; I have found them fascinating, but the Bishop of St Albans was not saying that he believed that Hastings deserved his fate, but he actually said that it was being said that Hastings deserved his fate and is sceptical about this.

I have again read and re-read the varied articles on the Richard III society website, the balanced debate in Richard III Maligned King, by Annette Carson, and the other debates on the execution and alleged conspiracy. While I concede that here is a case for a conspiracy involving the Woodville faction, to whit they were most likely plotting to seize the young King, alhough how they would achieve this when most of them were either under arrest or in sanctuary or on the run is hard to envisage; but this attempt would be natural given that the Queen was the mother and would fight tooth and nail to protect her son. The Woodville faction had every reason to stand against Richard; they did not trust him and Elizabeth was not prepared to work with him. Richard had seen that the faction would stand against him and on 10th June he wrote to the north to ask for troops; which some authorities believe were to prevent any action by the Woodville's although again most of them were not in a position for active rebellion. However, the Queen did have support and she did have a go between, so it is possible that she could raise troops herself and Richard appears to have feared this. Other authorities feel that Richard was making his move to legally claim the crown and was making sure that he was not opposed; this would make sense. He could not have used these troops on 16th June to persuade the queen to release Prince Richard to him as they would not have arrived on time. They could have been logically needed to keep order in the capital at the time of the coronation and acceptance of the crown two weeks later.

Richard according to some of the contemporary sources persuaded the council on 13th June that Hastings was guilty by presenting them with so called evidence. Some of the more colourful sources claim that he accused the Woodville faction and the Lord Hastings of stroing up weapons which he had brought to show them in London and had the crest of the Woodviles on. These could simply have been the legal arms taken from Anthony Woodville and the escort of the young King on their journey from Ludlow . I do not agree that they were stored for the invasion to Scotland ; but there is no evidence that they were to be used in an armed insurrection; although it is reasonable that Richard may have believed that they were and that he acted accordingly. Even if the Woodvilles were using these arms for this purpose; there is nothing to connect Hastings to this plot.

Richard is said to have provided evidence of Hastings guilt but Hastings was by this time dead and had not been allowed to defend himself. It was lawful for Richard under the law of arms to try Hastings and to execute him, but he should have tried him first also under the law of arms. Richard did not do this and I believe that he regretted this which explains his latter actions towards the widow and his kindness to the body of Lord Hastings. What happened to this so called evidence if it was to prove the guilt of Lord Hastings? Why do we not have this evidence? It would be much more satisfying as a historian, not a history student, to see this but it is either lost, was invented, or was destroyed. Richard ordered the execution first and then persuaded the council with Buckingham to accept the situation by the so called evidence that he presented and this has baffled histroians for centuries. The debate will go on for several years to come and will be revisited many times.

Lord Hastings only fault was that he would not have accepted Richard as King, but would have defended the young son of his best friend, Edward, and Richard knew this. Richard was about to seek support for his claim to the throne, a claim based on the bastarization of his two nephews, which he had lawful grounds for, if we accept tha the contract with Eleanor Butler was true. In the review Richard III, Loyalty and the Law, Peter Hammond has done an excellent article on the legal grounds and jurisdiction issues around the alleged marriage to Eleanor by Edward IV and if the children he had with Elizabeth Woodville were legitimate. I heartily recommend this articl; it is brilliant. I believe that Hastings had information which could have prevented Richards claim or that could have supported it; but he kept the truth to himself. Richard was angered by that and felt betrayed. Hastings could not have supported Richard's next move and his arrest was a pre emptive strike. Feeling let down by Hastings . Richard felt betrayed and believed that there was a wide plot to kill him or to endanger him, involving the Queen and varied members of the former regime, not in prison or sanctuary. He took the reasonable steps that he believed he had to in order to secure himself and the realm. The three arrested at Stoney Stanford were now executed. Some sources have them tried before the Earl of Northumberland, others do not give us enough detail. Earl Rivers should have been tried before a court of his peers, not merely the Earl of Northumberland, but others argue that again these people were loyal to prince Edward and were removed accordingly. That is something that sadly we do not have enough informaion about.

Richard did show himself to be chivilarous after the execution, as could only have been expected as he was known for his piety and general goodwille, which is why some have difficulty with this incident. He protected the widow of Lord Hastings and he allowed Lord Hastings to have his last will and testament granted by having him buried as requested by the late King in Windsor . Richard did not attain Hastings ; which means that he did not take his lands as would have been normal in cases of treason. For this we have to give him credit and praise as it shows his normal generosity of spirit. I can only conclude that whatever the truth about the involvement or not of Lord Hastings in any perceived plot that Richard was himself in fear for his life or he most probably may not have acted as hastily as he did. Richard took steps to preserve himself and his future reign from those he perceived as being a clear and present danger. However, denying Hastings a trial as all sources agree he did ; was to tarnish his reputation for generations to come.

Poohlandeva wrote:

"Just to respond briefly to Maria and others who mentioned some more sources I could read; I have found them fascinating, but the Bishop of St Albans was not saying that he believed that Hastings deserved his fate, but he actually said that it was being said that Hastings deserved his fate and is sceptical about this."

Marie:

Just being picky, but this was the Abbot of St Albans. There was no diocese of St Albans back in them thar days.

"Re Croyland - {snip} I do think the very last bit was indeed written by Bishop Russell when he was there in April 1486, but that's only a couple of pages."

Carol responds:

Hanham's article sounds fascinating. I'll try to find it. If I recall correctly, the last few pages (including Richard's supposed dream and a bit of anti-Richard doggerel) are the very least reliable and most hostile part of the chronicle. Just wondering why you think Russell, who worked closely with Richard and was trusted by him, would be responsible for attacking him in those pages. I can see Rous changing his coat, but Russell was part of Richard's administration and must have been among those who signed the petition asking him to become king. Otherwise, Richard would never have trusted him with such a high position. To turn on him with such venom would be an act of (to me) almost unimaginable hypocrisy.

Carol

Carol wrote:

I'm guessing that you're referring to my question about Russell and the Croyland account. Can you clarify which part you're referring to (where it starts as compared to the part I remembered) and why you think the last part is or might be Russell's?
Thanks for your trouble.

Marie replies:

I'm coming on to answer this since it's directed at me, but I've actually been off the forum for a few weeks because I don't currently have the time to engage.

My statement about Crowland and Russell was in a very old thread, so if you have found that you should have found the rest of it, where I explained in some detail. Good luck.