(no subject)

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

What's interesting to me is that this, again, points up that far from just seizing the throne outright, Richard was placed there, as much if not mire by the actions of others than by his own actions.

He was both Constable and Lord Protector, and in both cases by his late brother's order. He was also recognized as both by the Council, despite Rivers' and Dorset's worst efforts. Through no direct effort of his own, he was already three-quarters of his way to the throne.

Tamara