Hastings Execution

Absolutely right.
Between the death of one monarch and the crowning of the next the Constable was the law as if he were in fact king himself. Acting against the Constable was High Treason, so executing someone caught plotting against the Constable was totally legal.
Paul


On 12/03/2015 00:03, maryfriend@... [] wrote:

I know that we have explored this in the past but someone on facebook is asking if Richard would have been within his right as Constable to execute Hastings without a trial. If I remember rightly he would have been able to do it as Constable and as Protector, however, I just want to be sure. I would be grateful if someone, with more knowledge of 15th century law than I have, could confirm. Thank you.

Mary

Thank you Paul much appreciated.
Mary

A pleasure.
Paul


On 12/03/2015 19:45, maryfriend@... [] wrote:
Thank you Paul much appreciated.
Mary

Paul wrote: Absolutely right.
Between the death of one monarch and the crowning of the next the Constable was the law as if he were in fact king himself. Acting against the Constable was High Treason, so executing someone caught plotting against the Constable was totally legal. Doug here: We have to be careful though, or we'll fall right into the trap that was laid 500-odd years ago. If someone was charged with actually committing a treasonous act, such as physically attacking the Constable or verbally threatening harm to him, then that person could be treated as if he had been taken on the battlefield in arms against the Constable (acting in lieu of the monarch) and executed on the spot. If, on the other hand, someone was charged with the intent to commit an act of treason, such as plotting the Constable's death, it would require more than the Constable's charge; evidence would have to be presented and there'd also have to be a trial. Which, IMO, makes the circumstances under which Hastings was condemned to be executed of even greater importance. The argument against Richard has been that he acted illegally in the matter of Hastings' execution, that Richard arbitrarily had Hastings executed. That argument, as best I can determine, rests on the correct presumption that Richard, even in his capacity as Constable, could only order, on his own cognizance, the execution of someone caught in the act (so to speak). Thus, unless Hastings had actually physically assaulted Richard, or even tried to, then Hastings execution was illegal. Needless to say, I find it impossible to believe, i f there'd been such an attack on Richard by Hastings, that not even a rumor of an attack has survived . If an attack on Richard had occurred, then why haven't we even heard a rumor of it (if nothing else the old some men say)? After all, there was a two-year period when circulating such a story posed no danger to the one relating it. What we do know is that the Council had been in session and had taken a mid-day break. We have no record of the Council dispersing prior to Hastings' execution. We also have no record of any actions or words spoken by Hastings at the Council that would have constituted a charge of treason. Therefore if one presumes, as I do, that Hastings' execution was both legal and justified, then one is led to the conclusion that Hastings' was executed by the decree of the Council, on a charge of plotting some treasonous action against the Constable (Richard) and that the Council's decree was based on evidence presented to the Council by Richard. The same circumstances applied to the executions of Vaughn, Rivers and the others after they had been charged with complicity in Hastings' plotting. IOW, the Council was as deeply involved in Hastings' execution as Richard, if not more so considering the circumstances, and it's that involvement of the Council and, most importantly in my view, certain of its members, that has contributed so greatly to the efforts to lay Hastings execution solely at Richard's feet. Morton alone would move Heaven and Earth in his determination to distance himself from his actions on that day. Nor would several of those who'd voted to execute Hastings want any paper (vellum?) trail. Doug

ÿ Thank you, Paul! N ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] To: Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:36 AM Subject: Re: Hastings Execution

Absolutely right.
Between the death of one monarch and the crowning of the next the Constable was the law as if he were in fact king himself. Acting against the Constable was High Treason, so executing someone caught plotting against the Constable was totally legal.
Paul


On 12/03/2015 00:03, maryfriend@... [] wrote:

I know that we have explored this in the past but someone on facebook is asking if Richard would have been within his right as Constable to execute Hastings without a trial. If I remember rightly he would have been able to do it as Constable and as Protector, however, I just want to be sure. I would be grateful if someone, with more knowledge of 15th century law than I have, could confirm. Thank you.

Mary

Mary wrote :

"I know that we have explored this in the past but someone on facebook is asking if Richard would have been within his right as Constable to execute Hastings without a trial. If I remember rightly he would have been able to do it as Constable and as Protector, however, I just want to be sure. I would be grateful if someone, with more knowledge of 15th century law than I have, could confirm. Thank you."

Carol responds:

I think the first step in answering this question is to familiarize yourself with the Treason Act of 1351, still in effect in Richard's day--and even today, if I'm not mistaken. (See http://www.languageandlaw.org/TEXTS/STATS/TREASON.HTM. For "reason" read "treason.") The key part of the definition is the first part, "when a man doth compass [bring about] or imagine the death of our lord the King." In, I think, 1459, when Richard, Duke of York was Protector for the mentally incapacitated Henry VI, this provision was extended to include the Lord Protector as stand-in for the king. (Someone please help me here by citing a source!) In other words, Henry's council interpreted the law as extending to the Lord Protector--not in himself but as the representative of the king. Killing or plotting to kill or even imagining the death of the Protector (in the hearing of others) was therefore treason *against the king.*

If Hastings did indeed plot Richard's death (and I believe but can't prove that he did), his crime was, ironically, against the very king he was ostensibly trying to protect from Richard's control. (He may have felt that Richard, as Protector, was excluding others from the regency government rather than believing that Richard was intending to depose Edward V. Those who suppose the latter, including Mancini and the Crowland chronicler, are interpreting events in hindsight. He certainly did not think that Richard intended to *kill* his nephew or nephews as Edward V was still in the royal apartments and his brother was still in sanctuary with his mother.)

As Lord High Constable, Richard certainly had the authority to try cases of high treason, as had his predecessors Tiptoft and (ironically) Rivers. I would be grateful if someone would translate the relevant portions of the Latin passage describing the powers that Edward IV granted to Rivers as constable (which would also apply to Richard) in note 3 here: https://books.google.com/books?id=9uoaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA282&dq=%22statutis,+ordinationibus,+actibus%22+1467+Rivers+%22Edward+IV%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Yn4EVYzmDM33oATFmoLgCQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22statutis%2C%20ordinationibus%2C%20actibus%22%201467%20Rivers%20%22Edward%20IV%22&f=false

If the link doesn't work, I'll provide a TinyURL.

Carol

I agree Carol that Hastings was more concerned about being excluded from the Regency than the fact that the boys were in danger. As you say Edward was still known to be in the Tower and Richard was still with his mother at Westminster.
Mary

Doug wrote:"Needless to say, I find it impossible to believe,if there'd been such an attack on Richard by Hastings,that not even a rumor of an attack has survived. If an attack on Richard had occurred, then why haven't we even heard a rumor of it (if nothing else the old some men say)? "

But are we sure that rumours of an attack on Richard don't survive, in a different form?

This is actually something I've often been thinking about. What comes across from bits in different sources is a scene of utter confusion. Cries of treason at the chamber door; armed men rushing in; a scuffle; general disorder; Stanley receiving an injury on the face (how? why?). Mancini has Richard specifically crying out that an ambush had been prepared for him. (Interestingly, Mancini also has Hastings 'cut down', which then becomes the 'dragged outside and beheaded' of the later accounts.)

I strongly suspect there was either an actual assassination attempt - not just a plot, but an attempt - or a staged one (I'll leave you to decide who would have done the staging and why, in such a case). Either way, the scene of confusion described by different accounts is so reminiscent of the kind of assassinations (both attempted and successful) that had been popular in Italy in the recent years: most famously the assassination of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, and the Pazzi conspiracy against the Medici. Both were stabbings in a crowded setting where the assassins made use of the general confusion.

I don't think a *real* assassination attempt on that morning is that much of a stretch, if you consider who were present and where their loyalties ultimately lay. Indeed, one of the potential scenarios I've been considering is whether somebody might have wanted to kill two birds with one stone: kill Richard, and then pin it on Hastings to get rid of him too.

One thing is for sure: had Richard been such a consummate plotter as More et al. have him to be, the traditionally perceived method of getting rid of Hastings was an incredibly clumsy, amateurish and unconvincing affair.

Pansy

Sorry if I'm posting this twice - the earlier one disappeared somehow.
Doug wrote:
"Needless to say, I find it impossible to believe,if there'd been such an attack on Richard by Hastings,that not even a rumor of an attack has survived. If an attack on Richard had occurred, then why haven't we even heard a rumor of it (if nothing else the old some men say)?"
But are we sure that rumours of an attack on Richard don't survive, in a different form?

This is actually something I've often been thinking about. What comes across from bits in different sources is a scene of utter confusion. Cries of treason at the chamber door; armed men rushing in; a scuffle; general disorder; Stanley receiving an injury on the face. Mancini has Richard specifically crying out that an ambush had been prepared for him. (Interestingly, Mancini also has Hastings 'cut down', which then becomes the 'dragged outside and beheaded' of the later accounts.)

I strongly suspect there was either an actual assassination attempt - not just a plot, but an attempt - or a staged one (I'll leave you to decide who would have done the staging and why, in such a case). Either way, the scene of confusion described by different accounts is so reminiscent of the kind of assassinations (both attempted and successful) that had been popular in Italy in the recent years: most famously the assassination of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, and the Pazzi conspiracy against the Medici. Both were stabbings in a crowded setting where the assassins made use of the general confusion.

I don't think a *real* assassination attempt on that morning is that much of a stretch, if you consider who were present and where their loyalties ultimately lay. Indeed, one of the potential scenarios I've been considering is whether somebody might have wanted to kill two birds with one stone: kill Richard, and then pin it on Hastings to get rid of him too.

One thing is for sure: had Richard been such a consummate plotter as More et al. have him to be, the traditionally perceived method of getting rid of Hastings was an incredibly clumsy, amateurish and unconvincing affair.

Pansy

I tend to agree with you, Pansy. The execution of Hastings without proper cause seems so out of character with what we know of Richard.
The only way it makes sense without due cause is if Richard was a psychopath, and there is no evidence of that.

JessFrom: pansydobersby
Sent: 15/03/2015 16:25
To:
Subject: Re: Hastings Execution

Doug wrote:"Needless to say, I find it impossible to believe,if there'd been such an attack on Richard by Hastings,that not even a rumor of an attack has survived. If an attack on Richard had occurred, then why haven't we even heard a rumor of it (if nothing else the old some men say)? "

But are we sure that rumours of an attack on Richard don't survive, in a different form?

This is actually something I've often been thinking about. What comes across from bits in different sources is a scene of utter confusion. Cries of treason at the chamber door; armed men rushing in; a scuffle; general disorder; Stanley receiving an injury on the face (how? why?). Mancini has Richard specifically crying out that an ambush had been prepared for him. (Interestingly, Mancini also has Hastings 'cut down', which then becomes the 'dragged outside and beheaded' of the later accounts.)

I strongly suspect there was either an actual assassination attempt - not just a plot, but an attempt - or a staged one (I'll leave you to decide who would have done the staging and why, in such a case). Either way, the scene of confusion described by different accounts is so reminiscent of the kind of assassinations (both attempted and successful) that had been popular in Italy in the recent years: most famously the assassination of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, and the Pazzi conspiracy against the Medici. Both were stabbings in a crowded setting where the assassins made use of the general confusion.

I don't think a *real* assassination attempt on that morning is that much of a stretch, if you consider who were present and where their loyalties ultimately lay. Indeed, one of the potential scenarios I've been considering is whether somebody might have wanted to kill two birds with one stone: kill Richard, and then pin it on Hastings to get rid of him too.

One thing is for sure: had Richard been such a consummate plotter as More et al. have him to be, the traditionally perceived method of getting rid of Hastings was an incredibly clumsy, amateurish and unconvincing affair.

Pansy

Jess wrote:

"I tend to agree with you, Pansy. The execution of Hastings without proper cause seems so out of character with what we know of Richard. The only way it makes sense without due cause is if Richard was a psychopath, and there is no evidence of that."

Carol responds:

Or if he was planning from the beginning to seize the throne (which we know he wasn't) and was scheming to get all opposition out of his way (which is what the traditional sources would have us believe). But, as you say, that type of ruthlessness is out of character, and we need to consider the possibility (bolstered by the letter to York) of a genuine conspiracy involving not only the queen and her blood relations but Hastings, Rotherham (who had certainly given her the Great Seal and lost his position as chancellor for that reason), and Morton (who may already have been scheming in Tudor's favor as he certainly did later).

That Richard felt the need to execute Hastings is certainly unfortunate and may have contributed to the rebellion at Guisnes, along with other unpleasant consequences. But that he would execute him without cause passes belief.

Carol

Doug wrote :

Doug wrote:"Needless to say, I find it impossible to believe,if there'd been such an attack on Richard by Hastings,that not even a rumor of an attack has survived. If an attack on Richard had occurred, then why haven't we even heard a rumor of it (if nothing else the old some men say)? ""

Carol responds:

Warning: Long post with quotations from Crowland, Mancini, and the Chronicle of London.

I'm snipping Pansy's intelligent and well-thought out response to make one small point: If we're going to find the truth about the Hastings affair (which may be impossible), we should start by discarding More and Vergil, who represent the Tudor viewpoint long after the event and add humanist-style invented dialogue. We have only two near-contemporary accounts, neither from an eye witness. Mancini is an outsider (sent from France but ultimately from Italy, which may have influenced his view of English politics!), and the Crowland chronicler, whoever he may have been, is also reporting from hearsay. Other sources (personal letters, etc.) record the confusion of the time and note Hastings' death but say nothing about his guilt or innocence. (The Great Chronicle of London reflects the beginning of the Tudor tradition, greatly expanded in More and Vergil.)

Crowland states that the council had been divided into two groups so that the entire council was not present during the arrest (nothing sinister in that since the other group was presumably discussing coronation plans) but says nothing about Richard's leaving the room and coming back--or any of the details contained in More and Vergil.

This is *all* that Crowland has to say on the matter:

"In the meanwhile, the lord Hastings, who seemed to wish in every way to serve the two dukes and to be desirous of earning their favour, was extremely elated at these changes to which the affairs of the world are so subject, and was in the habit of saying that hitherto nothing whatever had been done except the transferring of the government of the kingdom from two of the queen's blood to two more powerful persons of the king's; and this, too, effected without any slaughter, or indeed causing as much blood to be shed as would be produced by the cut of a finger. In the course, however, of a very few days after the utterance of these words, this extreme of joy of his supplanted with sorrow. For, the day previously, the Protector had, with singular adroitness, divided the council, so that one part met in the morning at Westminster, and the other at the Tower of London, where the king was. The lord Hastings, on the thirteenth day of the month of June, being the sixth day of the week, on coming to the Tower to join the council, was, by order of the Protector, beheaded. Two distinguished preplates, also, Thomas, archbishop of York, and John, bishop of Ely, being out of respect for their order, held exempt from captial punishment, were carried prisoners to different castles in Wales. The three strongest supporters of the new king being thus removed without judgment or justice, and all the rest of his faithful subjects fearing the like treatment, the two dukes did thenceforth just as they pleased."

This is obviously a biased account, yet it presents only a few facts, which can be summed up as follows: On the morning of Friday 13 June 1483, one part of the council met at the Tower and the other half at Westminster. At one of these meetings, Richard ordered the beheading of Hastings and the arrest of Rotherham and Morton. Not a word about Stanley (or strawberries or witchcraft or withered arms), not a word of dialogue, not a mention of Richard leaving the room and reentering in an angry mood, chewing his lip.

Mancini, who wrongly places the arrest of Hastings after Richard's "get[ting] into his power the Duke of York," has a more detailed account, complete with the same motive assumed by Crowland, "the removal or imprisonment of . . . the closest friends of his brother," who would be expected to support Edward IV's son. It's Mancini who has Richard sending Buckingham to sound the loyalty of Hastings et al. and learning that they "foregathered in each other's houses." He has these three "and several others [coming] to the Tower about ten in the morning to salute the Protector, as was their custom. When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden weapons that they might be the first to open the attachttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups//conversations/messages/48119k. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders. . . . After this execution had been done in the citadel, the townsmen, who had heard the uproar but were uncertain of the cause, became panic-stricken . . . but to calm the multitude, the duke instantly sent a herald to proclaim that a plot had been detected in the citadel, and Hastings, the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty."

It's hard to know what to make of this account, which is surely wrong in omitting the council meeting. It has Hastings "cut down in the citadel" yet executed. The details of the meetings in each others' houses and the announcement by the herald to calm the Londoners seem plausible, at least. This account, which has been embroidered with details based on Mancini's assumption that Richard was aiming for the throne, at least agrees with Crowland in attributing the arrest rather than execution of Morton and Rotherham to their being priests, but has nothing else (other than the assumption of Richard's motive) in common with Crowland's account. Note again the absence of Stanley, strawberries, withered arms and all the rest, including Richard's leaving the room and coming back angry. But could there be a grain of truth in the concealed weapons charge, here presented as a lie?

Between these two accounts and those of More and Vergil (which can be read online at the American RIII Society website), there's one intermediate account with which those two must have been familiar, that of the Great Chronicle of London. That version (also based on the assumption that Richard was aiming for the throne) follows:

"And all this season the Lord Hastings was had in great favour with the said protector and received of him many great benefits and gifts, as many other noble men did, and all to bring his evil purpose about. And . . . upon the 13th day of June he appointed a Council to be held within the Tower, to which were invited the Earl of Derby [Thomas Stanley], the Lord Hastings, with many others, but most of such as he knew would favor his cause. And upon the same day Lord Hastings dined with him, and after dinner rode behind him or behind the Duke of Buckingham to the Tower, where, when they with the other lords had entered the council chamber and had communed for a while of such matters as he had previously proposed, suddenly one made an outcry at the council chamber door, Treason! treason!', and forthwith the usher opened the door and then pressed in such men as were before appointed and straightway laid hands upon the Earl of Derby and the Lord Hastings; and at once, without any process of law or lawful confession, led Lord Hastings out unto the green beside the chapel and there, upon an end of a squared piece of timber. . . struck off his head. . . . And in like manner would the Earl of Derby have been dealt with, as the fame after went, saving [that the Protector] feared the Lord Strange, the earl's son, who was then in Lancashire, wherefore he [Stanley] was immediately set at liberty without hurt, except that his face was grazed with some weapon . . . . Then were . . . Rotherham and . . . Morton set in surety for a time."

Here we see the doubtful story of Thomas Stanley being involved in the scuffle (with the absurd intrusion of Lord Strange through confusion with later events. This account agrees with Crowland about the council meeting and with Mancini regarding the armed men rushing in to seize Lord Hastings. We see the "squared piece of timber" enter the story for the first time, along with the dinner (which would have been eaten about nine or ten in the morning and is probably an imagined detail since the author is unsure which lord Hastings rode behind). Otherwise, we have June 13 as the date (as in Crowland) and the location of the meeting in the Tower. The rest appears to be imagined detailed followed up and embroidered in More and Vergil (except that More has Richard say, "I wil not to dinner til I se thy hed of[f]").

All this is to say that Hastings was executed for treason and the two bishops arrested on Friday 13 June, almost certainly at a council meeting in the Tower (which may have been one of two simultaneous meetings). Richard seems to have sent a herald to announce the fact and calm the crowd (presumably ending the rumors apparently circulating at the time as recorded in the Cely memo, not quoted in this post). Everything else is either error or embroidery as far as I can determine. And certainly anything reported in More or Vergil that does not first appear here is either the product of their imaginations (humanists being notorious for inventing dialogue) or a reflection of the Tudor tradition as it had evolved from these sparse beginnings.

Carol, who hopes that at least a few people have stayed awake long enough to complete this post!

I did, and found it to be most interesting.



On Mar 15, 2015, at 2:27 PM, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote :

Doug wrote: "Needless to say, I find it impossible to believe, i f there'd been such an attack on Richard by Hastings, that not even a rumor of an attack has survived . If an attack on Richard had occurred, then why haven't we even heard a rumor of it (if nothing else the old some men say)? " "

Carol responds:

Warning: Long post with quotations from Crowland, Mancini, and the Chronicle of London.

I'm snipping Pansy's intelligent and well-thought out response to make one small point: If we're going to find the truth about the Hastings affair (which may be impossible), we should start by discarding More and Vergil, who represent the Tudor viewpoint long after the event and add humanist-style invented dialogue. We have only two near-contemporary accounts, neither from an eye witness. Mancini is an outsider (sent from France but ultimately from Italy, which may have influenced his view of English politics!), and the Crowland chronicler, whoever he may have been, is also reporting from hearsay. Other sources (personal letters, etc.) record the confusion of the time and note Hastings' death but say nothing about his guilt or innocence. (The Great Chronicle of London reflects the beginning of the Tudor tradition, greatly expanded in More and Vergil.)

Crowland states that the council had been divided into two groups so that the entire council was not present during the arrest (nothing sinister in that since the other group was presumably discussing coronation plans) but says nothing about Richard's leaving the room and coming back--or any of the details contained in More and Vergil.

This is *all* that Crowland has to say on the matter:

"In the meanwhile, the lord Hastings, who seemed to wish in every way to serve the two dukes and to be desirous of earning their favour, was extremely elated at these changes to which the affairs of the world are so subject, and was in the habit of saying that hitherto nothing whatever had been done except the transferring of the government of the kingdom from two of the queen's blood to two more powerful persons of the king's; and this, too, effected without any slaughter, or indeed causing as much blood to be shed as would be produced by the cut of a finger. In the course, however, of a very few days after the utterance of these words, this extreme of joy of his supplanted with sorrow. For, the day previously, the Protector had, with singular adroitness, divided the council, so that one part met in the morning at Westminster, and the other at the Tower of London, where the king was. The lord Hastings, on the thirteenth day of the month of June, being the sixth day of the week, on coming to the Tower to join the council, was, by order of the Protector, beheaded. Two distinguished preplates, also, Thomas, archbishop of York, and John, bishop of Ely, being out of respect for their order, held exempt from captial punishment, were carried prisoners to different castles in Wales. The three strongest supporters of the new king being thus removed without judgment or justice, and all the rest of his faithful subjects fearing the like treatment, the two dukes did thenceforth just as they pleased."

This is obviously a biased account, yet it presents only a few facts, which can be summed up as follows: On the morning of Friday 13 June 1483, one part of the council met at the Tower and the other half at Westminster. At one of these meetings, Richard ordered the beheading of Hastings and the arrest of Rotherham and Morton. Not a word about Stanley (or strawberries or witchcraft or withered arms), not a word of dialogue, not a mention of Richard leaving the room and reentering in an angry mood, chewing his lip.

Mancini, who wrongly places the arrest of Hastings after Richard's "get[ting] into his power the Duke of York," has a more detailed account, complete with the same motive assumed by Crowland, "the removal or imprisonment of . . . the closest friends of his brother," who would be expected to support Edward IV's son. It's Mancini who has Richard sending Buckingham to sound the loyalty of Hastings et al. and learning that they "foregathered in each other's houses." He has these three "and several others [coming] to the Tower about ten in the morning to salute the Protector, as was their custom. When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden weapons that they might be the first to open the attachttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups//conversations/messages/48119k. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders. . . . After this execution had been done in the citadel, the townsmen, who had heard the uproar but were uncertain of the cause, became panic-stricken . . . but to calm the multitude, the duke instantly sent a herald to proclaim that a plot had been detected in the citadel, and Hastings, the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty."

It's hard to know what to make of this account, which is surely wrong in omitting the council meeting. It has Hastings "cut down in the citadel" yet executed. The details of the meetings in each others' houses and the announcement by the herald to calm the Londoners seem plausible, at least. This account, which has been embroidered with details based on Mancini's assumption that Richard was aiming for the throne, at least agrees with Crowland in attributing the arrest rather than execution of Morton and Rotherham to their being priests, but has nothing else (other than the assumption of Richard's motive) in common with Crowland's account. Note again the absence of Stanley, strawberries, withered arms and all the rest, including Richard's leaving the room and coming back angry. But could there be a grain of truth in the concealed weapons charge, here presented as a lie?

Between these two accounts and those of More and Vergil (which can be read online at the American RIII Society website), there's one intermediate account with which those two must have been familiar, that of the Great Chronicle of London. That version (also based on the assumption that Richard was aiming for the throne) follows:

"And all this season the Lord Hastings was had in great favour with the said protector and received of him many great benefits and gifts, as many other noble men did, and all to bring his evil purpose about. And . . . upon the 13th day of June he appointed a Council to be held within the Tower, to which were invited the Earl of Derby [Thomas Stanley], the Lord Hastings, with many others, but most of such as he knew would favor his cause. And upon the same day Lord Hastings dined with him, and after dinner rode behind him or behind the Duke of Buckingham to the Tower, where, when they with the other lords had entered the council chamber and had communed for a while of such matters as he had previously proposed, suddenly one made an outcry at the council chamber door, Treason! treason!', and forthwith the usher opened the door and then pressed in such men as were before appointed and straightway laid hands upon the Earl of Derby and the Lord Hastings; and at once, without any process of law or lawful confession, led Lord Hastings out unto the green beside the chapel and there, upon an end of a squared piece of timber. . . struck off his head. . . . And in like manner would the Earl of Derby have been dealt with, as the fame after went, saving [that the Protector] feared the Lord Strange, the earl's son, who was then in Lancashire, wherefore he [Stanley] was immediately set at liberty without hurt, except that his face was grazed with some weapon . . . . Then were . . . Rotherham and . . . Morton set in surety for a time."

Here we see the doubtful story of Thomas Stanley being involved in the scuffle (with the absurd intrusion of Lord Strange through confusion with later events. This account agrees with Crowland about the council meeting and with Mancini regarding the armed men rushing in to seize Lord Hastings. We see the "squared piece of timber" enter the story for the first time, along with the dinner (which would have been eaten about nine or ten in the morning and is probably an imagined detail since the author is unsure which lord Hastings rode behind). Otherwise, we have June 13 as the date (as in Crowland) and the location of the meeting in the Tower. The rest appears to be imagined detailed followed up and embroidered in More and Vergil (except that More has Richard say, "I wil not to dinner til I se thy hed of[f]").

All this is to say that Hastings was executed for treason and the two bishops arrested on Friday 13 June, almost certainly at a council meeting in the Tower (which may have been one of two simultaneous meetings). Richard seems to have sent a herald to announce the fact and calm the crowd (presumably ending the rumors apparently circulating at the time as recorded in the Cely memo, not quoted in this post). Everything else is either error or embroidery as far as I can determine. And certainly anything reported in More or Vergil that does not first appear here is either the product of their imaginations (humanists being notorious for inventing dialogue) or a reflection of the Tudor tradition as it had evolved from these sparse beginnings.

Carol, who hopes that at least a few people have stayed awake long enough to complete this post!

Me too!

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Hastings Execution
Sent: Sun, Mar 15, 2015 7:44:16 PM

 

I did, and found it to be most interesting.



On Mar 15, 2015, at 2:27 PM, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

 

Doug wrote :

Doug wrote: "Needless to say, I find it impossible to believe, i f there'd been such an attack on Richard by Hastings, that not even a rumor of an attack has survived . If an attack on Richard had occurred, then why haven't we even heard a rumor of it (if nothing else the old some men say)? " "

Carol responds:

Warning: Long post with quotations from Crowland, Mancini, and the Chronicle of London.

I'm snipping Pansy's intelligent and well-thought out response to make one small point: If we're going to find the truth about the Hastings affair (which may be impossible), we should start by discarding More and Vergil, who represent the Tudor viewpoint long after the event and add humanist-style invented dialogue. We have only two near-contemporary accounts, neither from an eye witness. Mancini is an outsider (sent from France but ultimately from Italy, which may have influenced his view of English politics!), and the Crowland chronicler, whoever he may have been, is also reporting from hearsay. Other sources (personal letters, etc.) record the confusion of the time and note Hastings' death but say nothing about his guilt or innocence. (The Great Chronicle of London reflects the beginning of the Tudor tradition, greatly expanded in More and Vergil.)

Crowland states that the council had been divided into two groups so that the entire council was not present during the arrest (nothing sinister in that since the other group was presumably discussing coronation plans) but says nothing about Richard's leaving the room and coming back--or any of the details contained in More and Vergil.

This is *all* that Crowland has to say on the matter:

"In the meanwhile, the lord Hastings, who seemed to wish in every way to serve the two dukes and to be desirous of earning their favour, was extremely elated at these changes to which the affairs of the world are so subject, and was in the habit of saying that hitherto nothing whatever had been done except the transferring of the government of the kingdom from two of the queen's blood to two more powerful persons of the king's; and this, too, effected without any slaughter, or indeed causing as much blood to be shed as would be produced by the cut of a finger. In the course, however, of a very few days after the utterance of these words, this extreme of joy of his supplanted with sorrow. For, the day previously, the Protector had, with singular adroitness, divided the council, so that one part met in the morning at Westminster, and the other at the Tower of London, where the king was. The lord Hastings, on the thirteenth day of the month of June, being the sixth day of the week, on coming to the Tower to join the council, was, by order of the Protector, beheaded. Two distinguished preplates, also, Thomas, archbishop of York, and John, bishop of Ely, being out of respect for their order, held exempt from captial punishment, were carried prisoners to different castles in Wales. The three strongest supporters of the new king being thus removed without judgment or justice, and all the rest of his faithful subjects fearing the like treatment, the two dukes did thenceforth just as they pleased."

This is obviously a biased account, yet it presents only a few facts, which can be summed up as follows: On the morning of Friday 13 June 1483, one part of the council met at the Tower and the other half at Westminster. At one of these meetings, Richard ordered the beheading of Hastings and the arrest of Rotherham and Morton. Not a word about Stanley (or strawberries or witchcraft or withered arms), not a word of dialogue, not a mention of Richard leaving the room and reentering in an angry mood, chewing his lip.

Mancini, who wrongly places the arrest of Hastings after Richard's "get[ting] into his power the Duke of York," has a more detailed account, complete with the same motive assumed by Crowland, "the removal or imprisonment of . . . the closest friends of his brother," who would be expected to support Edward IV's son. It's Mancini who has Richard sending Buckingham to sound the loyalty of Hastings et al. and learning that they "foregathered in each other's houses." He has these three "and several others [coming] to the Tower about ten in the morning to salute the Protector, as was their custom. When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden weapons that they might be the first to open the attachttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups//conversations/messages/48119k. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders. . . . After this execution had been done in the citadel, the townsmen, who had heard the uproar but were uncertain of the cause, became panic-stricken  . . . but to calm the multitude, the duke instantly sent a herald to proclaim that a plot had been detected in the citadel, and Hastings, the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty."

It's hard to know what to make of this account, which is surely wrong in omitting the council meeting. It has Hastings "cut down in the citadel" yet executed. The details of the meetings in each others' houses and the announcement by the herald to calm the Londoners seem plausible, at least. This account, which has been embroidered with details based on Mancini's assumption that Richard was aiming for the throne, at least agrees with Crowland in attributing the arrest rather than execution of Morton and Rotherham to their being priests, but has nothing else (other than the assumption of Richard's motive) in common with Crowland's account. Note again the absence of Stanley, strawberries, withered arms and all the rest, including Richard's leaving the room and coming back angry. But could there be a grain of truth in the concealed weapons charge, here presented as a lie?

Between these two accounts and those of More and Vergil (which can be read online at the American RIII Society website), there's one intermediate account with which those two must have been familiar, that of the Great Chronicle of London. That version (also based on the assumption that Richard was aiming for the throne) follows:

"And all this season the Lord Hastings was had in great favour with the said protector and received of him many great benefits and gifts, as many other noble men did, and all to bring his evil purpose about. And . . . upon the 13th day of June he appointed a Council to be held within the Tower, to which were invited the Earl of Derby [Thomas Stanley], the Lord Hastings, with many others, but most of such as he knew would favor his cause. And upon the same day Lord Hastings dined with him, and after dinner rode behind him or behind the Duke of Buckingham to the Tower, where, when they with the other lords had entered the council chamber and had communed for a while of such matters as he had previously proposed, suddenly one made an outcry at the council chamber door, Treason! treason!', and forthwith the usher opened the door and then pressed in such men as were before appointed and straightway laid hands upon the Earl of Derby and the Lord Hastings; and at once, without any process of law or lawful confession, led Lord Hastings out unto the green beside the chapel and there, upon an end of a squared piece of timber. . .   struck off his head. . . . And in like manner would the Earl of Derby have been dealt with, as the fame after went, saving [that the Protector] feared the Lord Strange, the earl's son, who was then in Lancashire, wherefore he [Stanley] was immediately set at liberty without hurt, except that his face was grazed with some weapon . . . . Then were . . . Rotherham and . . . Morton set in surety for a time."

Here we see the doubtful story of Thomas Stanley being involved in the scuffle (with the absurd intrusion of Lord Strange through confusion with later events. This account agrees with Crowland about the council meeting and with Mancini regarding the armed men rushing in to seize Lord Hastings. We see the "squared piece of timber" enter the story for the first time, along with the dinner (which would have been eaten about nine or ten in the morning and is probably an imagined detail since the author is unsure which lord Hastings rode behind). Otherwise, we have June 13 as the date (as in Crowland) and the location of the meeting in the Tower. The rest appears to be imagined detailed followed up and embroidered in More and Vergil (except that More has Richard say, "I wil not to dinner til I se thy hed of[f]").

All this is to say that Hastings was executed for treason and the two bishops arrested on Friday 13 June, almost certainly at a council meeting in the Tower (which may have been one of two simultaneous meetings). Richard seems to have sent a herald to announce the fact and calm the crowd (presumably ending the rumors apparently circulating at the time as recorded in the Cely memo, not quoted in this post). Everything else is either error or embroidery as far as I can determine. And certainly anything reported in More or Vergil that does not first appear here is either the product of their imaginations (humanists being notorious for inventing dialogue) or a reflection of the Tudor tradition as it had evolved from these sparse beginnings.

Carol, who hopes that at least a few people have stayed awake long enough to complete this post!

 

Just looking back at what Doug wrote I am wondering why it seems so few wish to give Richard the benefit of the doubt, as the only account we have of the council meeting is from More, which means Morton, so well known for his impartiality regarding Richard! His account would have done everything to blacken Richard's name and whitewash his own participation in any illegal act against the Constable and Protector.
Richard had by now been informed, by Catesby, of Hastings involvement with those plotting to remove him, and I cannot believe Hastings simply sat there while Richard accused him, Stanley and Morton of such plots. Even Morton said that Stanley was injured in the fracas, so I can easily believe Hastings decided to defend himself, not just verbally, possibly starting the fracas. Drawing a weapon in the presence of the Protector and threatening him would have been sufficent to make summary execution legal, especially in view of what Hastings intentions were now known to be. By doing so Hastings would have been admitting his culpability.
So easy to blame the dead for something. The start of so many stories to blacken Richard's name.
I for one believe he acted legally, to protect not just the Protector, but also the country from yet another sudden descent into civil war. Decisively act, as he so often did.
Paul


On 12/03/2015 14:58, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] wrote:
Paul wrote: Absolutely right.
Between the death of one monarch and the crowning of the next the Constable was the law as if he were in fact king himself. Acting against the Constable was High Treason, so executing someone caught plotting against the Constable was totally legal.   Doug here: We have to be careful though, or we'll fall right into the trap that was laid 500-odd years ago. If someone was charged with actually committing a treasonous act, such as physically attacking the Constable or verbally threatening harm to him, then that person could be treated as if he had been taken on the battlefield in arms against the Constable (acting in lieu of the monarch) and executed on the spot. If, on the other hand, someone was charged with the intent to commit an act of treason, such as plotting the Constable's death, it would require more than the Constable's charge; evidence would have to be presented and there'd also have to be a trial. Which, IMO, makes the circumstances under which Hastings was condemned to be executed of even greater importance. The argument against Richard has been that he acted illegally in the matter of Hastings' execution, that Richard arbitrarily had Hastings executed. That argument, as best I can determine, rests on the correct presumption that Richard, even in his capacity as Constable, could only order, on his own cognizance, the execution of someone caught in the act (so to speak). Thus, unless Hastings had actually physically assaulted Richard, or even tried to, then Hastings execution was illegal. Needless to say, I find it impossible to believe, i f there'd been such an attack on Richard by Hastings, that not even a rumor of an attack has survived . If an attack on Richard had occurred, then why haven't we even heard a rumor of it (if nothing else the old some men say)? After all, there was a two-year period when circulating such a story posed no danger to the one relating it.   What we do know is that the Council had been in session and had taken a mid-day break. We have no record of the Council dispersing prior to Hastings' execution. We also have no record of any actions or words spoken by Hastings at the Council that would have constituted a charge of treason. Therefore if one presumes, as I do, that Hastings' execution was both legal and justified, then one is led to the conclusion that Hastings' was executed by the decree of the Council, on a charge of plotting some treasonous action against the Constable (Richard) and that the Council's decree was based on evidence presented to the Council by Richard. The same circumstances applied to the executions of Vaughn, Rivers and the others after they had been charged with complicity in Hastings' plotting. IOW, the Council was as deeply involved in Hastings' execution as Richard, if not more so considering the circumstances, and it's that involvement of the Council and, most importantly in my view, certain of its members, that has contributed so greatly to the efforts to lay Hastings execution solely at Richard's feet. Morton alone would move Heaven and Earth in his determination to distance himself from his actions on that day. Nor would several of those who'd voted to execute Hastings want any paper (vellum?) trail. Doug

Carol, Thank you for setting me straight! It appears as if I managed to get what happened exactly backwards (as if that's never happened before)! My original argument was that much of what is purported to the facts about Hastings' execution, were merely attempts to cover up the Council's complicity in Richard's actions. However (and I kick myself for not catching it), as you pointed out, the members of the Council who needed alibis, for any actions they may have participated in against Hastings, were the same people who were arrested. Oi! (Bangs head on table) It seems to me anyway, that an awful lot of energy has been expended in focusing attention only on Richard's actions; almost as if to divert attention from the actions of everyone else. Odd that, isn't it? Is my memory correct in that Mancini and Crowland weren't, as best we can tell, available to whomever composed the Chronicle of London? Because, if that's the case, wouldn't the idea that there was some sort of commotion at the Council meeting be validated, or at least supported, what with there being two, separate and unrelated sources? Then there's the question, who raised the alarm? Mancini says Richard cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, but the Chronicler says ...where, when they with the other lords had entered the council chamber and had communed for a while of such matters as he (Richard-DS) had previously proposed, suddenly one (who?-DS) made an outcry at the council chamber door, Treason! treason!', and forthwith the usher opened the door and then pressed in such men as were before appointed... So both agree that some sort of alarm was raised, but not who raised it. Both agree that there were armed men stationed outside the Council room and both state that those armed men were stationed there at Richard's direction (Mancini's prearranged, the Chronicler's before appointed). Both also imply that stationing armed men outside a Council meeting was unusual. Really? Why has no historian ever challenged such a presumption? Of course Richard either posted guards outside the room the Council was meeting or saw to it that there were such guards  it was part of his job as Constable to ensure the safety of the members of the Council! Do you think the following, even if somewhat conjectural, might better explain what we do know about that Council meeting? - At the Council meeting at the Tower, Richard produces evidence that Hastings, Morton and Rotherham are plotting to either kill or imprison Richard. Because the evidence is only of a plot, the Council would have to rule on the guilt, or innocence, of Hastings and the others before any executions could take place. Even if the Council lacked cognizance for such an immediate ruling, which I'm uncertain about; it did have the legal authority to imprison someone charged with plotting treason. - Hastings, confronted with evidence of his plotting, either draws his sword or verbally threatens Richard; thus committing an act of treason, for which he could be executed without any trial. Having been caught in the act, so to speak. - Hastings' actions/words causes someone in the Council room to raise the alarm with a cry of Treason! Guards, stationed as usual, outside the Council room, upon hearing the already raised cry of Treason!, burst into the room, taking up the cry as they enter. - Then follows the (in)famous commotion. Hastings is subdued, taken out and executed and Morton and Rotherham are arrested. Having the latter not being executed solely on their status as members of the clergy (Mancini's out of respect for their order) is just another attempt to mislead. That the two prelates weren't executed wasn't because they were members of the clergy, but because they hadn't participated in Hastings' actions of verbally or physically threatening Richard. They weren't executed, not because of their clerical status, but because they hadn't, as Hastings had, committed an act of treason; they'd only(!?!) plotted it. I realize that I've made two presumptions in the above: the first is that Richard had some sort of evidence against Hastings & Co and, second, that a plot did exist and Hastings, Morton and Rotherham were involved. So, what would lead those three to not only contemplate, but actually plot, the imprisonment or death of Richard? Both Mancini and the Chronicler presume that Richard had been aiming at the crown from the moment his brother died. We here, or most of us anyway, presume that Richard took the crown only after Stillington presented evidence to the Council, and that evidence was accepted by the Council, that Edward IV's children were illegitimate, that Richard put forward his claim to the throne. Which would explain Richard being so upset as Dr. Shaa's oration at St. Paul's  a decision one way or the other hadn't yet been made. Could it be that preventing or reversing what the plotters knew was going to be the the Council's decision to accept Stillington's evidence was behind all this plotting between Hastings, Morton and Rotherham? That it was their knowledge that the Council was certainly, or almost certainly, going to accept the evidence about the illegitimacy of Edward V, his brother and sisters and that the only way to prevent Edward losing his crown was to remove the person who would gain it? Doug (who has included Carol's post below and also saved it to his RIII files)
Carol wrote:

Warning: Long post with quotations from Crowland, Mancini, and the Chronicle of London.

I'm snipping Pansy's intelligent and well-thought out response to make one small point: If we're going to find the truth about the Hastings affair (which may be impossible), we should start by discarding More and Vergil, who represent the Tudor viewpoint long after the event and add humanist-style invented dialogue. We have only two near-contemporary accounts, neither from an eye witness. Mancini is an outsider (sent from France but ultimately from Italy, which may have influenced his view of English politics!), and the Crowland chronicler, whoever he may have been, is also reporting from hearsay. Other sources (personal letters, etc.) record the confusion of the time and note Hastings' death but say nothing about his guilt or innocence. (The Great Chronicle of London reflects the beginning of the Tudor tradition, greatly expanded in More and Vergil.)

Crowland states that the council had been divided into two groups so that the entire council was not present during the arrest (nothing sinister in that since the other group was presumably discussing coronation plans) but says nothing about Richard's leaving the room and coming back--or any of the details contained in More and Vergil.

This is *all* that Crowland has to say on the matter:

"In the meanwhile, the lord Hastings, who seemed to wish in every way to serve the two dukes and to be desirous of earning their favour, was extremely elated at these changes to which the affairs of the world are so subject, and was in the habit of saying that hitherto nothing whatever had been done except the transferring of the government of the kingdom from two of the queen's blood to two more powerful persons of the king's; and this, too, effected without any slaughter, or indeed causing as much blood to be shed as would be produced by the cut of a finger. In the course, however, of a very few days after the utterance of these words, this extreme of joy of his supplanted with sorrow. For, the day previously, the Protector had, with singular adroitness, divided the council, so that one part met in the morning at Westminster, and the other at the Tower of London, where the king was. The lord Hastings, on the thirteenth day of the month of June, being the sixth day of the week, on coming to the Tower to join the council, was, by order of the Protector, beheaded. Two distinguished preplates, also, Thomas, archbishop of York, and John, bishop of Ely, being out of respect for their order, held exempt from captial punishment, were carried prisoners to different castles in Wales. The three strongest supporters of the new king being thus removed without judgment or justice, and all the rest of his faithful subjects fearing the like treatment, the two dukes did thenceforth just as they pleased."

This is obviously a biased account, yet it presents only a few facts, which can be summed up as follows: On the morning of Friday 13 June 1483, one part of the council met at the Tower and the other half at Westminster. At one of these meetings, Richard ordered the beheading of Hastings and the arrest of Rotherham and Morton. Not a word about Stanley (or strawberries or witchcraft or withered arms), not a word of dialogue, not a mention of Richard leaving the room and reentering in an angry mood, chewing his lip.

Mancini, who wrongly places the arrest of Hastings after Richard's "get[ting] into his power the Duke of York," has a more detailed account, complete with the same motive assumed by Crowland, "the removal or imprisonment of . . . the closest friends of his brother," who would be expected to support Edward IV's son. It's Mancini who has Richard sending Buckingham to sound the loyalty of Hastings et al. and learning that they "foregathered in each other's houses." He has these three "and several others [coming] to the Tower about ten in the morning to salute the Protector, as was their custom. When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden weapons that they might be the first to open the attachttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups//conversations/messages/48119k. Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders. . . . After this execution had been done in the citadel, the townsmen, who had heard the uproar but were uncertain of the cause, became panic-stricken . . . but to calm the multitude, the duke instantly sent a herald to proclaim that a plot had been detected in the citadel, and Hastings, the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty."

It's hard to know what to make of this account, which is surely wrong in omitting the council meeting. It has Hastings "cut down in the citadel" yet executed. The details of the meetings in each others' houses and the announcement by the herald to calm the Londoners seem plausible, at least. This account, which has been embroidered with details based on Mancini's assumption that Richard was aiming for the throne, at least agrees with Crowland in attributing the arrest rather than execution of Morton and Rotherham to their being priests, but has nothing else (other than the assumption of Richard's motive) in common with Crowland's account. Note again the absence of Stanley, strawberries, withered arms and all the rest, including Richard's leaving the room and coming back angry. But could there be a grain of truth in the concealed weapons charge, here presented as a lie?

Between these two accounts and those of More and Vergil (which can be read online at the American RIII Society website), there's one intermediate account with which those two must have been familiar, that of the Great Chronicle of London. That version (also based on the assumption that Richard was aiming for the throne) follows:

"And all this season the Lord Hastings was had in great favour with the said protector and received of him many great benefits and gifts, as many other noble men did, and all to bring his evil purpose about. And . . . upon the 13th day of June he appointed a Council to be held within the Tower, to which were invited the Earl of Derby [Thomas Stanley], the Lord Hastings, with many others, but most of such as he knew would favor his cause. And upon the same day Lord Hastings dined with him, and after dinner rode behind him or behind the Duke of Buckingham to the Tower, where, when they with the other lords had entered the council chamber and had communed for a while of such matters as he had previously proposed, suddenly one made an outcry at the council chamber door, Treason! treason!', and forthwith the usher opened the door and then pressed in such men as were before appointed and straightway laid hands upon the Earl of Derby and the Lord Hastings; and at once, without any process of law or lawful confession, led Lord Hastings out unto the green beside the chapel and there, upon an end of a squared piece of timber. . . struck off his head. . . . And in like manner would the Earl of Derby have been dealt with, as the fame after went, saving [that the Protector] feared the Lord Strange, the earl's son, who was then in Lancashire, wherefore he [Stanley] was immediately set at liberty without hurt, except that his face was grazed with some weapon . . . . Then were . . . Rotherham and . . . Morton set in surety for a time."

Here we see the doubtful story of Thomas Stanley being involved in the scuffle (with the absurd intrusion of Lord Strange through confusion with later events. This account agrees with Crowland about the council meeting and with Mancini regarding the armed men rushing in to seize Lord Hastings. We see the "squared piece of timber" enter the story for the first time, along with the dinner (which would have been eaten about nine or ten in the morning and is probably an imagined detail since the author is unsure which lord Hastings rode behind). Otherwise, we have June 13 as the date (as in Crowland) and the location of the meeting in the Tower. The rest appears to be imagined detailed followed up and embroidered in More and Vergil (except that More has Richard say, "I wil not to dinner til I se thy hed of[f]").

All this is to say that Hastings was executed for treason and the two bishops arrested on Friday 13 June, almost certainly at a council meeting in the Tower (which may have been one of two simultaneous meetings). Richard seems to have sent a herald to announce the fact and calm the crowd (presumably ending the rumors apparently circulating at the time as recorded in the Cely memo, not quoted in this post). Everything else is either error or embroidery as far as I can determine. And certainly anything reported in More or Vergil that does not first appear here is either the product of their imaginations (humanists being notorious for inventing dialogue) or a reflection of the Tudor tradition as it had evolved from these sparse beginnings.

Carol, who hopes that at least a few people have stayed awake long enough to complete this post!

Hi Carol,Can you provide a TinyURL, please? When I click I just get taken to Stubbs's book which I then cannot open. Or is the reference to a document I might be able to locate elsewhere?Thank you! Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 14 Mar 2015, at 18:37, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Mary wrote :

"I know that we have explored this in the past but someone on facebook is asking if Richard would have been within his right as Constable to execute Hastings without a trial. If I remember rightly he would have been able to do it as Constable and as Protector, however, I just want to be sure. I would be grateful if someone, with more knowledge of 15th century law than I have, could confirm. Thank you."

Carol responds:

I think the first step in answering this question is to familiarize yourself with the Treason Act of 1351, still in effect in Richard's day--and even today, if I'm not mistaken. (See http://www.languageandlaw.org/TEXTS/STATS/TREASON.HTM. For "reason" read "treas on.") The key part of the definition is the first part, "when a man doth compass [bring about] or imagine the death of our lord the King." In, I think, 1459, when Richard, Duke of York was Protector for the mentally incapacitated Henry VI, this provision was extended to include the Lord Protector as stand-in for the king. (Someone please help me here by citing a source!) In other words, Henry's council interpreted the law as extending to the Lord Protector--not in himself but as the representative of the king. Killing or plotting to kill or even imagining the death of the Protector (in the hearing of others) was therefore treason *against the king.*

If Hastings did indeed plot Richard's death (and I believe but can't prove that he did), his crime was, ironically, against the very king he was ostensibly trying to protect from Richard's control. (He may have felt that Richard, as Protector, was excluding others from the regency government rather than believing that Richard was intending to depose Edward V. Those who suppose the latter, including Mancini and the Crowlan d chronicler, are interpreting events in hindsight. He certainly did not think that Richard intended to *kill* his nephew or nephews as Edward V was still in the royal apartments and his brother was still in sanctuary with his mother.)

As Lord High Constable, Richard certainly had the authority to try cases of high treason, as had his predecessors Tiptoft and (ironically) Rivers. I would be grateful if someone would translate the relevant portions of the Latin passage describing the powers that Edward IV granted to Rivers as constable (which would also apply to Richard) in note 3 here: https://books.google.com/books? id=9uoaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA282&dq=%22statutis,+ordinationibus,+actibus%22+1467+Rivers+%22Edward+IV%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Yn4EVYzmDM33oATFmoLgCQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22statutis%2C%20ordinationibus%2C%20actibus%22%201467%20Rivers%20%22Edward%20IV%22&f=false

If the link doesn't work, I'll provide a TinyURL.

Carol

I believe the part about Stanley being injured in the face is in Fabyan as well...
I do agree with you, Carol, but at the same time - I'm not sure I'd dismiss even the 'bad' sources outright. Of course one cannot decide that a source is unreliable and then pick and choose bits of it to use as 'evidence' anyway, but I do think even the twisted and embroidered accounts are useful - not as 'evidence', as such, but for comparing and contrasting when you're trying to tease out scenarios that might have happened.
Embroidered scenarios are interesting to me because the embroidered parts can serve several different purposes& they can be there to create an appearance of verisimilitude, or they can be there to obfuscate and disguise the truth completely& they can be 100% lies, of course.
But they could also be there to 'explain away' rumours and other sources that we've lost over the centuries: they can take pieces of knowledge (or rumours) that circulated at that time, but twist their meaning completely. This is the interesting part about these sources, to me.
I wonder about things like: if the part about Richard sleeping late, for instance, is a lie, then what is the purpose of that lie? What is it trying to hide?
A couple of things that I've been thinking about, re: the events of that morning:
1. Who would have benefited most from Richard being killed on that day? Not Hastings, I daresay.
2. Where was Edward V? Weren't the state apartments in the White Tower as well? Would he have taken part in the meeting that was, after all, about his upcoming coronation?
3. I wonder about the chronology of these events as well, because the meeting and the supposed murder of Hastings would have taken place around the hour when it was usual to attend daily Mass. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the council chamber pretty much adjoined the Chapel of St John in the White Tower. Was Richard going to Mass in the Chapel and did something (an ambush?) happen there?
Pansy

Intriguing possibilities, Pansy. Thought-provoking. Sandra =^..^= From: pansydobersby Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:01 PM To: Subject: Re: Hastings Execution

I believe the part about Stanley being injured in the face is in Fabyan as well... I do agree with you, Carol, but at the same time - I'm not sure I'd dismiss even the 'bad' sources outright. Of course one cannot decide that a source is unreliable and then pick and choose bits of it to use as 'evidence' anyway, but I do think even the twisted and embroidered accounts are useful - not as 'evidence', as such, but for comparing and contrasting when you're trying to tease out scenarios that might have happened. Embroidered scenarios are interesting to me because the embroidered parts can serve several different purposes& they can be there to create an appearance of verisimilitude, or they can be there to obfuscate and disguise the truth completely& they can be 100% lies, of course. But they could also be there to 'explain away' rumours and other sources that we've lost over the centuries: they can take pieces of knowledge (or rumours) that circulated at that time, but twist their meaning completely. This is the interesting part about these sources, to me. I wonder about things like: if the part about Richard sleeping late, for instance, is a lie, then what is the purpose of that lie? What is it trying to hide? A couple of things that I've been thinking about, re: the events of that morning: 1. Who would have benefited most from Richard being killed on that day? Not Hastings, I daresay. 2. Where was Edward V? Weren't the state apartments in the White Tower as well? Would he have taken part in the meeting that was, after all, about his upcoming coronation? 3. I wonder about the chronology of these events as well, because the meeting and the supposed murder of Hastings would have taken place around the hour when it was usual to attend daily Mass. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the council chamber pretty much adjoined the Chapel of St John in the White Tower. Was Richard going to Mass in the Chapel and did something (an ambush?) happen there? Pansy

Thank you, Sandra :) What I find especially intriguing about the church thing is that the major Italian assassinations took place in the church as well (or as the victims were about to enter the church). I don't know why it was a 'thing', exactly.
Pansy

Jan wrote :

"Hi Carol, Can you provide a TinyURL, please? When I click I just get taken to Stubbs's book which I then cannot open. Or is the reference to a document I might be able to locate elsewhere? Thank you!"

Hi, Jan. The link should take you to the proper page. Just scroll down. (It worked for me.)

The TinyURL website, on the other hand, is behaving strangely, so the TinyURL won't take you directly to the page you need. Instead, the page will say that this TinyURL redirects to the original long link, and *then* you click on the Redirect link. But here's the link it gave me if you want to try it (they don't normally say "preview"): http://preview.tinyurl.com/mmj8r6e

Pansy wrote :

"I believe the part about Stanley being injured in the face is in Fabyan as well...
"I do agree with you, Carol, but at the same time - I'm not sure I'd dismiss even the 'bad' sources outright. [snip]"

Carol responds:

Possibly Fabyan is the Great Chronicle author's source for Stanley's inclusion. My point was that he isn't mentioned in either of the contemporary or near-contemporary accounts most commonly relied on for the events of 1483. I could speculate about sources for the rumor that he was involved, but I can't prove my theories so it's best not to toss them into the discussion at this point.

As for the bad sources, I believe strongly that we should read them and know (or be able to check) which part of the story came from which source. But, generally, the later the source, the more elaborate it is, and the more elaborate it is, the less reliable. Yes, it's interesting to explore the imaginative additions (Are the strawberries added for verisimilitude? Are they symbolic?) But unless we have good reason to trust the later Tudor sources (among which we should include Hall and Shakespeare), their primary value seems to me to lie in allowing us to trace the growth of the legend--and, of course, in their inclusion of rumors that the "Princes" escaped, which shows that even More and Vergil had some doubts on the matter (which believers of More's maudlin and improbable tale would do well to notice).

Anyway, yes, of course, we should be familiar with them (which is why I keep providing links for those who haven't read them or need to refresh their memories). But I would be very leery of citing anything in either author, especially More, as true or even probable--except when they admit that their "source" is a rumor!

Not sure what you mean about Richard supposedly coming late to the meeting. So far as I know, no one reported that. But More has him engaging in apparently friendly conversation about Morton's strawberries and then leaving the room, which he reenters in a rage (cue the withered arm speech). Nothing of the sort appears in the earlier sources.

Carol

Oh, of course, Carol - I don't really disagree with you, I was just clarifying why I'll poke my nose in every source ;)
As for Richard being late - I mean the part about him 'excusyng hymself that he had bene from them so long, saieng merely that he had bene a slepe that day'. And Hall's 'been a sleeper' etc. I can't help but wonder what the *point* of all that is: unless it is to 'explain' the otherwise strange chronology of that morning.
Pansy

Pansy wrote:
Thank you, Sandra :) What I find especially intriguing about the church thing is that the major Italian assassinations took place in the church as well (or as the victims were about to enter the church). I don't know why it was a 'thing', exactly. Doug here: I believe it was because one didn't wear weapons into a church and thus the intended victim would be unarmed. While there would likely be guards accompanying, say, a ruling Medici, those guards, if armed themselves, would remain outside the church and there would be a brief interval where Cosimo, Pietro or whoever would be vulnerable. If the guards weren't armed, then all it would take would be to have a group of men rush the guards, while one or two armed men concentrated on reaching the intended victim. Of course, if the attackers didn't care about bringing weapons into a church, then it would be even easier, which was how one Medici (can't recall which) got his. Doug

If, according to Clements Markham, and he's right, and also presented here
The execution of Lord Hastings | Richard III Society  American Branch The execution of Lord Hastings | Richard III Society... The Crimes' of Richard III: The execution of Lord HastingsThis crime' is one of those to which a great deal of attention has been given, an excessive amount ... View on www.r3.org Preview by Yahoo

that the execution of Hastings was postponed from the 13th to the 20th June to allow for a trial, it's because he wasn't one of the Woodvilles. They didn't get a trial because they were that far up in power acquisition. Of course, it can still be argued that everyone, despite their motives, has a right to be heard.

Hardly anyone seems to question the Hastings execution might have taken place with a view towards good governance, not with the intent to usurp.

I caught a poster, early, who said 'I don't think Hastings would have allied himself with the Woodvilles,' (e of part of quote)
Who else could he have allied himself with? One only has to think as to who were the top players in those momentous events.
This rubbishy book I've got about The Tower of London even includes the Hastings-Woodville plot, but it is predictably quoted as spin.
Richard killed. He killed because it was how policy was conducted then. This is something that shouldn't be lost sight of.

It was I who said that based on the fact that the Hastings family and the Greys of Groby (EW's first husband) were in dispute over land in Leicestershire for several decades before and after 1483. There is evidence of this in the Leicester archives and in the National Archives. And I mean dispute - forest ambushes, punch ups in Leicester, raids on Dorset's house. Also of course, EW tolerated but did not agree with the Edward/Hastings companionship. And anyway, as someone else said, there's no reason to believe Edward V would have promoted Hastings - he had been brought up by Rivers. Hope this helps. H
From: "davetheslave44@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 3 April 2015, 4:32
Subject: Re: Hastings Execution

I caught a poster, early, who said 'I don't think Hastings would have allied himself with the Woodvilles,' (e of part of quote)
Who else could he have allied himself with? One only has to think as to who were the top players in those momentous events.
This rubbishy book I've got about The Tower of London even includes the Hastings-Woodville plot, but it is predictably quoted as spin.
Richard killed. He killed because it was how policy was conducted then. This is something that shouldn't be lost sight of.

Like I said in an earlier message, I don't believe he would have allied himself with the Woodvilles either, and there's a possibility that he might have allied himself with Morton et al. I was struck by his will, dated 1481, where he appoints Morton - along with Lord Dynham - as the executors of his will, and says of both men: 'in whom I put my synguler and special trust'. That phrase doesn't prove anything, but it does suggest that they were at least close in 1481.
The fact that Morton and others were imprisoned the day that Hastings was killed is interesting, to say the least.

Whether Hastings would really have allied himself with the pro-Tudor faction is a different matter. Perhaps he was as deceived in Morton as everybody else; perhaps they were simply friends, and Hastings got hoodwinked. Or perhaps he got sucked into an anti-Woodville conspiracy that was actually a pro-Tudor conspiracy. Or perhaps in the 1480s he was no longer on such good terms with Edward IV himself either that he used to be. Who knows.
But I am absolutely certain that Morton was never really pro-Yorkist or pro-Woodville. Nor was Oliver King. I think it speaks volumes that King - along with Morton, Bray, Bishop Foxe, et al. - made it to the very small circle of men whom Henry Tudor trusted in later years.
Pansy

Ok, so, according to those archives, it might look unlikely. But if the W had (of course, it's only a surmise) included H in their preemptive strike for power, would he have still sent the letter? I guess it'll just be conjecture, unless you argue who would he have more to gain from? But yes, even that 'rubbishy book' says that Edward V didn't like those who'd brought him up tampered with or changed.

I'd agree that Morton was pro-Tudor.