Richard and Lord Hastings
Richard and Lord Hastings
2008-04-29 11:30:43
Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings appeared to be on Richard's
side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It seems he only become
disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy caused by Buckingham's rapid
advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind of betrayal. It must have
made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage. Would Richard not have been
wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very unfair to Hastings?And does
Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad judgement on Richard's part?
Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to be a huge misjudgement.
Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue creature living ......him that had
best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the benefit of hindsight but even so
............
Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned out differently if he had kept
Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of difference in the end .......?
Eileen
side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It seems he only become
disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy caused by Buckingham's rapid
advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind of betrayal. It must have
made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage. Would Richard not have been
wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very unfair to Hastings?And does
Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad judgement on Richard's part?
Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to be a huge misjudgement.
Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue creature living ......him that had
best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the benefit of hindsight but even so
............
Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned out differently if he had kept
Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of difference in the end .......?
Eileen
Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
2008-04-29 16:42:35
The last Ricardian Bulletin had the first part of a two-part article on Hastings; part 2 due out in the next issue, and the topic is to be speculation on Hastings' motives in 1483. Looking forward to this because I've always felt we don't have a lot of concrete information on this man. A few years ago, I started a research project, which was aborted due to practicalities. However, I can say that Hastings had a few complications in his character. For example: he was receiving a pension from Charles the Bold. In the aftermath of Edward's French campaign, according to Commines, the following incident took place (this is a cut-and-paste from an article I had been working on):
In 1475, Hastings went to France with Edward. He was no happier than Richard with the ending of the French, but his protest and the repercussions of it reveal that same sense of finesse and graceful persuasion that had been evident in 1459. Commines was assigned by Louis to bring Hastings around. Commines wrote to Hastings several times, and then, Louis sent his chief steward, Pierre Claret to Edward's friend. Claret brought 2,000 crowns, and strict orders from Louis to get a receipt for the amount from Hastings. They met in London, and Hastings took the money but signed nothing for it. Claret begged for a letter to Louis acknowledging receipt of the money, so that Claret would be protected from an accusation of the theft of 2,000 crowns. Hastings agreed to the terms on the condition that it be made clear that the money was being given from the good will of your master, not at my request. If you want me to take it, put it here in my sleeve, but there will be no letter or witness. I do not want it said that the chamberlain of England is the pensioner of the King of France and that my receipts are to be found in his exchequer. Louis was disappointed but appreciative, and continued the 2,000 crown pension despite the absence of a receipt.
And he still continued to collect the pension from Charles. Pretty slick, if you ask me! Certainly someone who looked after his own interests and understood the concept of the loophole. When you put this together with a story (which I haven't yet found the root to, and therefore can't verify) that Hasting apparently commented that Edward wouldn't live long and there'd be trouble when the king died, I find a character of intelligence and some subtilty.
I wonder, sometimes, what Richard heard on his way to Stony Stratford, or what he might have found in London after his arrival there, and why he decided to trust so completely in Buckingham. That's the big mystery. There must have been something, and it may have had something to do with this apparent abilty of Hastings to "finesse". This will take continued digging, but I'm sure there was something, real, imagined, supposed, or suspected, that closed the door between Richard and Hastings. There may be something to the stories of Hastings urging Edward on the decadent road, though I have my doubts. It may have something to do with steps he might have taken during the year or less that he suspected Edward wouldn't survive, though I don't know. It may have been, ultimately, innocent of criminal activity, but enough to push things in the wrong direction. Whatever it was, it was definite enough in Richard's mind to shut Hastings out and treat Buckingham to a galore of promotions. If I'd been Hastings at that point, I would have been angry and fearful of what I might lose.
I have no doubt that you're correct in that Hastings' discontent and possible actions in the late spring of 1483 were prompted by this meteor known as Harry Stafford. In my play, which was produced a few years ago, I launch a plot on the following speculation:
Edward IV's death did not automatically guarantee a safe coronation for his son because there were people, close to the center of government, personified by Bishop Morton, who would have always considered Edward a usurper. Morton was a loyal Lancastrian, and though he threw his support behind the Yorkist victor, there was nothing necessarily to hold him to the boy who was, in his mind, the son of a usurper. He would have happily turned to his original loyalty, in this case on Henry Tudor and mama Margaret Beaufort. I am guessing that this would have been one of the troubles Hastings would have foreseen. Conflict with the Woodvilles would have been another. Loss of power to Buckingham, lack of confidence from Richard, a possible leak of Bishop Stillington's little news flash, and the instinct for self-preservation, may have, indeed, pushed Hastings to a decision to join Thomas Stanley, Bishop Morton and Mrs. Stanley (aka Margaret Beaufort) into promoting Henry Tudor over Edward V and/or Richard. If this was the case, then, according to the Yorkist, it would have been treason, whether conspiracy would have been aimed at dislodging Edward V, Richard, or both (and, of course, Buckingham into the bargain), and the execution, though not necessarily the manner of it, would have been justified.
Incidentally, around the 1460s, an oddly similar and nasty power struggle was taking place in Castile between Juan Pacheco, Marques of Villena, and Miguel Lucas, one-time protoge of Villena (ironic that) and newly-minted Condestable of Castile under the wavering power of Enrique IV.
This is a rush job from work, begun and cut off many times, and I apologize in advance.
Maria
elena@...
----------
>From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
>Sent: Apr 29, 2008 6:30 AM
>To:
>Subject: Richard and Lord Hastings
>
>Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings appeared to be on Richard's
>side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It seems he only become
>disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy caused by Buckingham's rapid
>advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind of betrayal. It must have
>made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage. Would Richard not have been
>wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very unfair to Hastings?And does
>Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad judgement on Richard's part?
>Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to be a huge misjudgement.
>Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue creature living ......him that had
>best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the benefit of hindsight but even so
>............
>Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned out differently if he had kept
>Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of difference in the end .......?
>Eileen
>
In 1475, Hastings went to France with Edward. He was no happier than Richard with the ending of the French, but his protest and the repercussions of it reveal that same sense of finesse and graceful persuasion that had been evident in 1459. Commines was assigned by Louis to bring Hastings around. Commines wrote to Hastings several times, and then, Louis sent his chief steward, Pierre Claret to Edward's friend. Claret brought 2,000 crowns, and strict orders from Louis to get a receipt for the amount from Hastings. They met in London, and Hastings took the money but signed nothing for it. Claret begged for a letter to Louis acknowledging receipt of the money, so that Claret would be protected from an accusation of the theft of 2,000 crowns. Hastings agreed to the terms on the condition that it be made clear that the money was being given from the good will of your master, not at my request. If you want me to take it, put it here in my sleeve, but there will be no letter or witness. I do not want it said that the chamberlain of England is the pensioner of the King of France and that my receipts are to be found in his exchequer. Louis was disappointed but appreciative, and continued the 2,000 crown pension despite the absence of a receipt.
And he still continued to collect the pension from Charles. Pretty slick, if you ask me! Certainly someone who looked after his own interests and understood the concept of the loophole. When you put this together with a story (which I haven't yet found the root to, and therefore can't verify) that Hasting apparently commented that Edward wouldn't live long and there'd be trouble when the king died, I find a character of intelligence and some subtilty.
I wonder, sometimes, what Richard heard on his way to Stony Stratford, or what he might have found in London after his arrival there, and why he decided to trust so completely in Buckingham. That's the big mystery. There must have been something, and it may have had something to do with this apparent abilty of Hastings to "finesse". This will take continued digging, but I'm sure there was something, real, imagined, supposed, or suspected, that closed the door between Richard and Hastings. There may be something to the stories of Hastings urging Edward on the decadent road, though I have my doubts. It may have something to do with steps he might have taken during the year or less that he suspected Edward wouldn't survive, though I don't know. It may have been, ultimately, innocent of criminal activity, but enough to push things in the wrong direction. Whatever it was, it was definite enough in Richard's mind to shut Hastings out and treat Buckingham to a galore of promotions. If I'd been Hastings at that point, I would have been angry and fearful of what I might lose.
I have no doubt that you're correct in that Hastings' discontent and possible actions in the late spring of 1483 were prompted by this meteor known as Harry Stafford. In my play, which was produced a few years ago, I launch a plot on the following speculation:
Edward IV's death did not automatically guarantee a safe coronation for his son because there were people, close to the center of government, personified by Bishop Morton, who would have always considered Edward a usurper. Morton was a loyal Lancastrian, and though he threw his support behind the Yorkist victor, there was nothing necessarily to hold him to the boy who was, in his mind, the son of a usurper. He would have happily turned to his original loyalty, in this case on Henry Tudor and mama Margaret Beaufort. I am guessing that this would have been one of the troubles Hastings would have foreseen. Conflict with the Woodvilles would have been another. Loss of power to Buckingham, lack of confidence from Richard, a possible leak of Bishop Stillington's little news flash, and the instinct for self-preservation, may have, indeed, pushed Hastings to a decision to join Thomas Stanley, Bishop Morton and Mrs. Stanley (aka Margaret Beaufort) into promoting Henry Tudor over Edward V and/or Richard. If this was the case, then, according to the Yorkist, it would have been treason, whether conspiracy would have been aimed at dislodging Edward V, Richard, or both (and, of course, Buckingham into the bargain), and the execution, though not necessarily the manner of it, would have been justified.
Incidentally, around the 1460s, an oddly similar and nasty power struggle was taking place in Castile between Juan Pacheco, Marques of Villena, and Miguel Lucas, one-time protoge of Villena (ironic that) and newly-minted Condestable of Castile under the wavering power of Enrique IV.
This is a rush job from work, begun and cut off many times, and I apologize in advance.
Maria
elena@...
----------
>From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
>Sent: Apr 29, 2008 6:30 AM
>To:
>Subject: Richard and Lord Hastings
>
>Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings appeared to be on Richard's
>side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It seems he only become
>disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy caused by Buckingham's rapid
>advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind of betrayal. It must have
>made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage. Would Richard not have been
>wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very unfair to Hastings?And does
>Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad judgement on Richard's part?
>Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to be a huge misjudgement.
>Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue creature living ......him that had
>best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the benefit of hindsight but even so
>............
>Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned out differently if he had kept
>Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of difference in the end .......?
>Eileen
>
Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
2008-04-29 22:01:33
Maria,
There is a great C16 discussion on "Sceptred Isle" at present and your Iberian input could be useful,
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: Maria
To: ;
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
The last Ricardian Bulletin had the first part of a two-part article on Hastings; part 2 due out in the next issue, and the topic is to be speculation on Hastings' motives in 1483. Looking forward to this because I've always felt we don't have a lot of concrete information on this man. A few years ago, I started a research project, which was aborted due to practicalities. However, I can say that Hastings had a few complications in his character. For example: he was receiving a pension from Charles the Bold. In the aftermath of Edward's French campaign, according to Commines, the following incident took place (this is a cut-and-paste from an article I had been working on):
In 1475, Hastings went to France with Edward. He was no happier than Richard with the ending of the French, but his protest and the repercussions of it reveal that same sense of finesse and graceful persuasion that had been evident in 1459. Commines was assigned by Louis to bring Hastings around. Commines wrote to Hastings several times, and then, Louis sent his chief steward, Pierre Claret to Edward's friend. Claret brought 2,000 crowns, and strict orders from Louis to get a receipt for the amount from Hastings. They met in London, and Hastings took the money but signed nothing for it. Claret begged for a letter to Louis acknowledging receipt of the money, so that Claret would be protected from an accusation of the theft of 2,000 crowns. Hastings agreed to the terms on the condition that it be made clear that the money was being given from the good will of your master, not at my request. If you want me to take it, put it here in my sleeve, but there will be no letter or witness. I do not want it said that the chamberlain of England is the pensioner of the King of France and that my receipts are to be found in his exchequer. Louis was disappointed but appreciative, and continued the 2,000 crown pension despite the absence of a receipt.
And he still continued to collect the pension from Charles. Pretty slick, if you ask me! Certainly someone who looked after his own interests and understood the concept of the loophole. When you put this together with a story (which I haven't yet found the root to, and therefore can't verify) that Hasting apparently commented that Edward wouldn't live long and there'd be trouble when the king died, I find a character of intelligence and some subtilty.
I wonder, sometimes, what Richard heard on his way to Stony Stratford, or what he might have found in London after his arrival there, and why he decided to trust so completely in Buckingham. That's the big mystery. There must have been something, and it may have had something to do with this apparent abilty of Hastings to "finesse". This will take continued digging, but I'm sure there was something, real, imagined, supposed, or suspected, that closed the door between Richard and Hastings. There may be something to the stories of Hastings urging Edward on the decadent road, though I have my doubts. It may have something to do with steps he might have taken during the year or less that he suspected Edward wouldn't survive, though I don't know. It may have been, ultimately, innocent of criminal activity, but enough to push things in the wrong direction. Whatever it was, it was definite enough in Richard's mind to shut Hastings out and treat Buckingham to a galore of promotions. If I'd been Hastings at that point, I would have been angry and fearful of what I might lose.
I have no doubt that you're correct in that Hastings' discontent and possible actions in the late spring of 1483 were prompted by this meteor known as Harry Stafford. In my play, which was produced a few years ago, I launch a plot on the following speculation:
Edward IV's death did not automatically guarantee a safe coronation for his son because there were people, close to the center of government, personified by Bishop Morton, who would have always considered Edward a usurper. Morton was a loyal Lancastrian, and though he threw his support behind the Yorkist victor, there was nothing necessarily to hold him to the boy who was, in his mind, the son of a usurper. He would have happily turned to his original loyalty, in this case on Henry Tudor and mama Margaret Beaufort. I am guessing that this would have been one of the troubles Hastings would have foreseen. Conflict with the Woodvilles would have been another. Loss of power to Buckingham, lack of confidence from Richard, a possible leak of Bishop Stillington's little news flash, and the instinct for self-preservation, may have, indeed, pushed Hastings to a decision to join Thomas Stanley, Bishop Morton and Mrs. Stanley (aka Margaret Beaufort) into promoting Henry Tudor over Edward V and/or Richard. If this was the case, then, according to the Yorkist, it would have been treason, whether conspiracy would have been aimed at dislodging Edward V, Richard, or both (and, of course, Buckingham into the bargain), and the execution, though not necessarily the manner of it, would have been justified.
Incidentally, around the 1460s, an oddly similar and nasty power struggle was taking place in Castile between Juan Pacheco, Marques of Villena, and Miguel Lucas, one-time protoge of Villena (ironic that) and newly-minted Condestable of Castile under the wavering power of Enrique IV.
This is a rush job from work, begun and cut off many times, and I apologize in advance.
Maria
elena@...
----------
>From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
>Sent: Apr 29, 2008 6:30 AM
>To:
>Subject: Richard and Lord Hastings
>
>Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings appeared to be on Richard's
>side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It seems he only become
>disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy caused by Buckingham's rapid
>advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind of betrayal. It must have
>made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage. Would Richard not have been
>wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very unfair to Hastings?And does
>Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad judgement on Richard's part?
>Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to be a huge misjudgement.
>Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue creature living ......him that had
>best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the benefit of hindsight but even so
>............
>Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned out differently if he had kept
>Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of difference in the end .......?
>Eileen
>
There is a great C16 discussion on "Sceptred Isle" at present and your Iberian input could be useful,
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: Maria
To: ;
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
The last Ricardian Bulletin had the first part of a two-part article on Hastings; part 2 due out in the next issue, and the topic is to be speculation on Hastings' motives in 1483. Looking forward to this because I've always felt we don't have a lot of concrete information on this man. A few years ago, I started a research project, which was aborted due to practicalities. However, I can say that Hastings had a few complications in his character. For example: he was receiving a pension from Charles the Bold. In the aftermath of Edward's French campaign, according to Commines, the following incident took place (this is a cut-and-paste from an article I had been working on):
In 1475, Hastings went to France with Edward. He was no happier than Richard with the ending of the French, but his protest and the repercussions of it reveal that same sense of finesse and graceful persuasion that had been evident in 1459. Commines was assigned by Louis to bring Hastings around. Commines wrote to Hastings several times, and then, Louis sent his chief steward, Pierre Claret to Edward's friend. Claret brought 2,000 crowns, and strict orders from Louis to get a receipt for the amount from Hastings. They met in London, and Hastings took the money but signed nothing for it. Claret begged for a letter to Louis acknowledging receipt of the money, so that Claret would be protected from an accusation of the theft of 2,000 crowns. Hastings agreed to the terms on the condition that it be made clear that the money was being given from the good will of your master, not at my request. If you want me to take it, put it here in my sleeve, but there will be no letter or witness. I do not want it said that the chamberlain of England is the pensioner of the King of France and that my receipts are to be found in his exchequer. Louis was disappointed but appreciative, and continued the 2,000 crown pension despite the absence of a receipt.
And he still continued to collect the pension from Charles. Pretty slick, if you ask me! Certainly someone who looked after his own interests and understood the concept of the loophole. When you put this together with a story (which I haven't yet found the root to, and therefore can't verify) that Hasting apparently commented that Edward wouldn't live long and there'd be trouble when the king died, I find a character of intelligence and some subtilty.
I wonder, sometimes, what Richard heard on his way to Stony Stratford, or what he might have found in London after his arrival there, and why he decided to trust so completely in Buckingham. That's the big mystery. There must have been something, and it may have had something to do with this apparent abilty of Hastings to "finesse". This will take continued digging, but I'm sure there was something, real, imagined, supposed, or suspected, that closed the door between Richard and Hastings. There may be something to the stories of Hastings urging Edward on the decadent road, though I have my doubts. It may have something to do with steps he might have taken during the year or less that he suspected Edward wouldn't survive, though I don't know. It may have been, ultimately, innocent of criminal activity, but enough to push things in the wrong direction. Whatever it was, it was definite enough in Richard's mind to shut Hastings out and treat Buckingham to a galore of promotions. If I'd been Hastings at that point, I would have been angry and fearful of what I might lose.
I have no doubt that you're correct in that Hastings' discontent and possible actions in the late spring of 1483 were prompted by this meteor known as Harry Stafford. In my play, which was produced a few years ago, I launch a plot on the following speculation:
Edward IV's death did not automatically guarantee a safe coronation for his son because there were people, close to the center of government, personified by Bishop Morton, who would have always considered Edward a usurper. Morton was a loyal Lancastrian, and though he threw his support behind the Yorkist victor, there was nothing necessarily to hold him to the boy who was, in his mind, the son of a usurper. He would have happily turned to his original loyalty, in this case on Henry Tudor and mama Margaret Beaufort. I am guessing that this would have been one of the troubles Hastings would have foreseen. Conflict with the Woodvilles would have been another. Loss of power to Buckingham, lack of confidence from Richard, a possible leak of Bishop Stillington's little news flash, and the instinct for self-preservation, may have, indeed, pushed Hastings to a decision to join Thomas Stanley, Bishop Morton and Mrs. Stanley (aka Margaret Beaufort) into promoting Henry Tudor over Edward V and/or Richard. If this was the case, then, according to the Yorkist, it would have been treason, whether conspiracy would have been aimed at dislodging Edward V, Richard, or both (and, of course, Buckingham into the bargain), and the execution, though not necessarily the manner of it, would have been justified.
Incidentally, around the 1460s, an oddly similar and nasty power struggle was taking place in Castile between Juan Pacheco, Marques of Villena, and Miguel Lucas, one-time protoge of Villena (ironic that) and newly-minted Condestable of Castile under the wavering power of Enrique IV.
This is a rush job from work, begun and cut off many times, and I apologize in advance.
Maria
elena@...
----------
>From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
>Sent: Apr 29, 2008 6:30 AM
>To:
>Subject: Richard and Lord Hastings
>
>Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings appeared to be on Richard's
>side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It seems he only become
>disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy caused by Buckingham's rapid
>advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind of betrayal. It must have
>made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage. Would Richard not have been
>wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very unfair to Hastings?And does
>Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad judgement on Richard's part?
>Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to be a huge misjudgement.
>Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue creature living ......him that had
>best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the benefit of hindsight but even so
>............
>Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned out differently if he had kept
>Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of difference in the end .......?
>Eileen
>
Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
2008-04-30 00:01:15
Thanks for that, Stephen -- should I just Google "Sceptred Isle" to find the group?
Maria
-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>Sent: Apr 29, 2008 5:16 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
>
>Maria,
>
>There is a great C16 discussion on "Sceptred Isle" at present and your Iberian input could be useful,
>
>Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Maria
> To: ;
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
>
>
> The last Ricardian Bulletin had the first part of a two-part article on Hastings; part 2 due out in the next issue, and the topic is to be speculation on Hastings' motives in 1483. Looking forward to this because I've always felt we don't have a lot of concrete information on this man. A few years ago, I started a research project, which was aborted due to practicalities. However, I can say that Hastings had a few complications in his character. For example: he was receiving a pension from Charles the Bold. In the aftermath of Edward's French campaign, according to Commines, the following incident took place (this is a cut-and-paste from an article I had been working on):
>
> In 1475, Hastings went to France with Edward. He was no happier than Richard with the ending of the French, but his protest and the repercussions of it reveal that same sense of finesse and graceful persuasion that had been evident in 1459. Commines was assigned by Louis to bring Hastings around. Commines wrote to Hastings several times, and then, Louis sent his chief steward, Pierre Claret to Edward's friend. Claret brought 2,000 crowns, and strict orders from Louis to get a receipt for the amount from Hastings. They met in London, and Hastings took the money but signed nothing for it. Claret begged for a letter to Louis acknowledging receipt of the money, so that Claret would be protected from an accusation of the theft of 2,000 crowns. Hastings agreed to the terms on the condition that it be made clear that the money was being given from the good will of your master, not at my request. If you want me to take it, put it here in my sleeve, but there will be no letter or witness. I do not want it said that the chamberlain of England is the pensioner of the King of France and that my receipts are to be found in his exchequer. Louis was disappointed but appreciative, and continued the 2,000 crown pension despite the absence of a receipt.
>
> And he still continued to collect the pension from Charles. Pretty slick, if you ask me! Certainly someone who looked after his own interests and understood the concept of the loophole. When you put this together with a story (which I haven't yet found the root to, and therefore can't verify) that Hasting apparently commented that Edward wouldn't live long and there'd be trouble when the king died, I find a character of intelligence and some subtilty.
>
> I wonder, sometimes, what Richard heard on his way to Stony Stratford, or what he might have found in London after his arrival there, and why he decided to trust so completely in Buckingham. That's the big mystery. There must have been something, and it may have had something to do with this apparent abilty of Hastings to "finesse". This will take continued digging, but I'm sure there was something, real, imagined, supposed, or suspected, that closed the door between Richard and Hastings. There may be something to the stories of Hastings urging Edward on the decadent road, though I have my doubts. It may have something to do with steps he might have taken during the year or less that he suspected Edward wouldn't survive, though I don't know. It may have been, ultimately, innocent of criminal activity, but enough to push things in the wrong direction. Whatever it was, it was definite enough in Richard's mind to shut Hastings out and treat Buckingham to a galore of promotions. If I'd been Hastings at that point, I would have been angry and fearful of what I might lose.
>
> I have no doubt that you're correct in that Hastings' discontent and possible actions in the late spring of 1483 were prompted by this meteor known as Harry Stafford. In my play, which was produced a few years ago, I launch a plot on the following speculation:
>
> Edward IV's death did not automatically guarantee a safe coronation for his son because there were people, close to the center of government, personified by Bishop Morton, who would have always considered Edward a usurper. Morton was a loyal Lancastrian, and though he threw his support behind the Yorkist victor, there was nothing necessarily to hold him to the boy who was, in his mind, the son of a usurper. He would have happily turned to his original loyalty, in this case on Henry Tudor and mama Margaret Beaufort. I am guessing that this would have been one of the troubles Hastings would have foreseen. Conflict with the Woodvilles would have been another. Loss of power to Buckingham, lack of confidence from Richard, a possible leak of Bishop Stillington's little news flash, and the instinct for self-preservation, may have, indeed, pushed Hastings to a decision to join Thomas Stanley, Bishop Morton and Mrs. Stanley (aka Margaret Beaufort) into promoting Henry Tudor over Edward V and/or Richard. If this was the case, then, according to the Yorkist, it would have been treason, whether conspiracy would have been aimed at dislodging Edward V, Richard, or both (and, of course, Buckingham into the bargain), and the execution, though not necessarily the manner of it, would have been justified.
>
> Incidentally, around the 1460s, an oddly similar and nasty power struggle was taking place in Castile between Juan Pacheco, Marques of Villena, and Miguel Lucas, one-time protoge of Villena (ironic that) and newly-minted Condestable of Castile under the wavering power of Enrique IV.
>
> This is a rush job from work, begun and cut off many times, and I apologize in advance.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> ----------
> >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 6:30 AM
> >To:
> >Subject: Richard and Lord Hastings
> >
> >Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings appeared to be on Richard's
> >side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It seems he only become
> >disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy caused by Buckingham's rapid
> >advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind of betrayal. It must have
> >made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage. Would Richard not have been
> >wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very unfair to Hastings?And does
> >Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad judgement on Richard's part?
> >Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to be a huge misjudgement.
> >Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue creature living ......him that had
> >best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the benefit of hindsight but even so
> >............
> >Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned out differently if he had kept
> >Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of difference in the end .......?
> >Eileen
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Maria
-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>Sent: Apr 29, 2008 5:16 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
>
>Maria,
>
>There is a great C16 discussion on "Sceptred Isle" at present and your Iberian input could be useful,
>
>Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Maria
> To: ;
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
>
>
> The last Ricardian Bulletin had the first part of a two-part article on Hastings; part 2 due out in the next issue, and the topic is to be speculation on Hastings' motives in 1483. Looking forward to this because I've always felt we don't have a lot of concrete information on this man. A few years ago, I started a research project, which was aborted due to practicalities. However, I can say that Hastings had a few complications in his character. For example: he was receiving a pension from Charles the Bold. In the aftermath of Edward's French campaign, according to Commines, the following incident took place (this is a cut-and-paste from an article I had been working on):
>
> In 1475, Hastings went to France with Edward. He was no happier than Richard with the ending of the French, but his protest and the repercussions of it reveal that same sense of finesse and graceful persuasion that had been evident in 1459. Commines was assigned by Louis to bring Hastings around. Commines wrote to Hastings several times, and then, Louis sent his chief steward, Pierre Claret to Edward's friend. Claret brought 2,000 crowns, and strict orders from Louis to get a receipt for the amount from Hastings. They met in London, and Hastings took the money but signed nothing for it. Claret begged for a letter to Louis acknowledging receipt of the money, so that Claret would be protected from an accusation of the theft of 2,000 crowns. Hastings agreed to the terms on the condition that it be made clear that the money was being given from the good will of your master, not at my request. If you want me to take it, put it here in my sleeve, but there will be no letter or witness. I do not want it said that the chamberlain of England is the pensioner of the King of France and that my receipts are to be found in his exchequer. Louis was disappointed but appreciative, and continued the 2,000 crown pension despite the absence of a receipt.
>
> And he still continued to collect the pension from Charles. Pretty slick, if you ask me! Certainly someone who looked after his own interests and understood the concept of the loophole. When you put this together with a story (which I haven't yet found the root to, and therefore can't verify) that Hasting apparently commented that Edward wouldn't live long and there'd be trouble when the king died, I find a character of intelligence and some subtilty.
>
> I wonder, sometimes, what Richard heard on his way to Stony Stratford, or what he might have found in London after his arrival there, and why he decided to trust so completely in Buckingham. That's the big mystery. There must have been something, and it may have had something to do with this apparent abilty of Hastings to "finesse". This will take continued digging, but I'm sure there was something, real, imagined, supposed, or suspected, that closed the door between Richard and Hastings. There may be something to the stories of Hastings urging Edward on the decadent road, though I have my doubts. It may have something to do with steps he might have taken during the year or less that he suspected Edward wouldn't survive, though I don't know. It may have been, ultimately, innocent of criminal activity, but enough to push things in the wrong direction. Whatever it was, it was definite enough in Richard's mind to shut Hastings out and treat Buckingham to a galore of promotions. If I'd been Hastings at that point, I would have been angry and fearful of what I might lose.
>
> I have no doubt that you're correct in that Hastings' discontent and possible actions in the late spring of 1483 were prompted by this meteor known as Harry Stafford. In my play, which was produced a few years ago, I launch a plot on the following speculation:
>
> Edward IV's death did not automatically guarantee a safe coronation for his son because there were people, close to the center of government, personified by Bishop Morton, who would have always considered Edward a usurper. Morton was a loyal Lancastrian, and though he threw his support behind the Yorkist victor, there was nothing necessarily to hold him to the boy who was, in his mind, the son of a usurper. He would have happily turned to his original loyalty, in this case on Henry Tudor and mama Margaret Beaufort. I am guessing that this would have been one of the troubles Hastings would have foreseen. Conflict with the Woodvilles would have been another. Loss of power to Buckingham, lack of confidence from Richard, a possible leak of Bishop Stillington's little news flash, and the instinct for self-preservation, may have, indeed, pushed Hastings to a decision to join Thomas Stanley, Bishop Morton and Mrs. Stanley (aka Margaret Beaufort) into promoting Henry Tudor over Edward V and/or Richard. If this was the case, then, according to the Yorkist, it would have been treason, whether conspiracy would have been aimed at dislodging Edward V, Richard, or both (and, of course, Buckingham into the bargain), and the execution, though not necessarily the manner of it, would have been justified.
>
> Incidentally, around the 1460s, an oddly similar and nasty power struggle was taking place in Castile between Juan Pacheco, Marques of Villena, and Miguel Lucas, one-time protoge of Villena (ironic that) and newly-minted Condestable of Castile under the wavering power of Enrique IV.
>
> This is a rush job from work, begun and cut off many times, and I apologize in advance.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> ----------
> >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 6:30 AM
> >To:
> >Subject: Richard and Lord Hastings
> >
> >Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings appeared to be on Richard's
> >side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It seems he only become
> >disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy caused by Buckingham's rapid
> >advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind of betrayal. It must have
> >made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage. Would Richard not have been
> >wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very unfair to Hastings?And does
> >Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad judgement on Richard's part?
> >Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to be a huge misjudgement.
> >Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue creature living ......him that had
> >best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the benefit of hindsight but even so
> >............
> >Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned out differently if he had kept
> >Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of difference in the end .......?
> >Eileen
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
2008-04-30 09:47:39
--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for that, Stephen -- should I just Google "Sceptred Isle" to
find the group?
>
> Maria
>
No, just try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sceptredisle/?
yguid=279896267; it is another Yahoo group and we Ricardians are
quite prominent on it!
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 5:16 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
> >
> >Maria,
> >
> >There is a great C16 discussion on "Sceptred Isle" at present and
your Iberian input could be useful,
> >
> >Stephen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Maria
> > To: ;
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Lord
Hastings
> >
> >
> > The last Ricardian Bulletin had the first part of a two-part
article on Hastings; part 2 due out in the next issue, and the topic
is to be speculation on Hastings' motives in 1483. Looking forward to
this because I've always felt we don't have a lot of concrete
information on this man. A few years ago, I started a research
project, which was aborted due to practicalities. However, I can say
that Hastings had a few complications in his character. For example:
he was receiving a pension from Charles the Bold. In the aftermath of
Edward's French campaign, according to Commines, the following
incident took place (this is a cut-and-paste from an article I had
been working on):
> >
> > In 1475, Hastings went to France with Edward. He was no happier
than Richard with the ending of the French, but his protest and the
repercussions of it reveal that same sense of finesse and graceful
persuasion that had been evident in 1459. Commines was assigned by
Louis to bring Hastings around. Commines wrote to Hastings several
times, and then, Louis sent his chief steward, Pierre Claret to
Edward’s friend. Claret brought 2,000 crowns, and strict orders
from Louis to get a receipt for the amount from Hastings. They met in
London, and Hastings took the money but signed nothing for it. Claret
begged for a letter to Louis acknowledging receipt of the money, so
that Claret would be protected from an accusation of the theft of
2,000 crowns. Hastings agreed to the terms on the condition that it
be made clear that the money was being given “from the good will of
your master, not at my request. If you want me to take it, put it
here in my sleeve, but there will be no letter or witness. I do not
want it said that the chamberlain of England is the pensioner of the
King of France and that my receipts are to be found in his
exchequer.†Louis was disappointed but appreciative, and continued
the 2,000 crown pension despite the absence of a receipt.
> >
> > And he still continued to collect the pension from Charles.
Pretty slick, if you ask me! Certainly someone who looked after his
own interests and understood the concept of the loophole. When you
put this together with a story (which I haven't yet found the root
to, and therefore can't verify) that Hasting apparently commented
that Edward wouldn't live long and there'd be trouble when the king
died, I find a character of intelligence and some subtilty.
> >
> > I wonder, sometimes, what Richard heard on his way to Stony
Stratford, or what he might have found in London after his arrival
there, and why he decided to trust so completely in Buckingham.
That's the big mystery. There must have been something, and it may
have had something to do with this apparent abilty of Hastings
to "finesse". This will take continued digging, but I'm sure there
was something, real, imagined, supposed, or suspected, that closed
the door between Richard and Hastings. There may be something to the
stories of Hastings urging Edward on the decadent road, though I have
my doubts. It may have something to do with steps he might have taken
during the year or less that he suspected Edward wouldn't survive,
though I don't know. It may have been, ultimately, innocent of
criminal activity, but enough to push things in the wrong direction.
Whatever it was, it was definite enough in Richard's mind to shut
Hastings out and treat Buckingham to a galore of promotions. If I'd
been Hastings at that point, I would have been angry and fearful of
what I might lose.
> >
> > I have no doubt that you're correct in that Hastings' discontent
and possible actions in the late spring of 1483 were prompted by this
meteor known as Harry Stafford. In my play, which was produced a few
years ago, I launch a plot on the following speculation:
> >
> > Edward IV's death did not automatically guarantee a safe
coronation for his son because there were people, close to the center
of government, personified by Bishop Morton, who would have always
considered Edward a usurper. Morton was a loyal Lancastrian, and
though he threw his support behind the Yorkist victor, there was
nothing necessarily to hold him to the boy who was, in his mind, the
son of a usurper. He would have happily turned to his original
loyalty, in this case on Henry Tudor and mama Margaret Beaufort. I am
guessing that this would have been one of the troubles Hastings would
have foreseen. Conflict with the Woodvilles would have been another.
Loss of power to Buckingham, lack of confidence from Richard, a
possible leak of Bishop Stillington's little news flash, and the
instinct for self-preservation, may have, indeed, pushed Hastings to
a decision to join Thomas Stanley, Bishop Morton and Mrs. Stanley
(aka Margaret Beaufort) into promoting Henry Tudor over Edward V
and/or Richard. If this was the case, then, according to the Yorkist,
it would have been treason, whether conspiracy would have been aimed
at dislodging Edward V, Richard, or both (and, of course, Buckingham
into the bargain), and the execution, though not necessarily the
manner of it, would have been justified.
> >
> > Incidentally, around the 1460s, an oddly similar and nasty power
struggle was taking place in Castile between Juan Pacheco, Marques of
Villena, and Miguel Lucas, one-time protoge of Villena (ironic that)
and newly-minted Condestable of Castile under the wavering power of
Enrique IV.
> >
> > This is a rush job from work, begun and cut off many times, and
I apologize in advance.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@...
> >
> > ----------
> > >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> > >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 6:30 AM
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Richard and Lord Hastings
> > >
> > >Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings
appeared to be on Richard's
> > >side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It
seems he only become
> > >disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy
caused by Buckingham's rapid
> > >advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind
of betrayal. It must have
> > >made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage.
Would Richard not have been
> > >wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very
unfair to Hastings?And does
> > >Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad
judgement on Richard's part?
> > >Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to
be a huge misjudgement.
> > >Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue
creature living ......him that had
> > >best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the
benefit of hindsight but even so
> > >............
> > >Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned
out differently if he had kept
> > >Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of
difference in the end .......?
> > >Eileen
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for that, Stephen -- should I just Google "Sceptred Isle" to
find the group?
>
> Maria
>
No, just try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sceptredisle/?
yguid=279896267; it is another Yahoo group and we Ricardians are
quite prominent on it!
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 5:16 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
> >
> >Maria,
> >
> >There is a great C16 discussion on "Sceptred Isle" at present and
your Iberian input could be useful,
> >
> >Stephen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Maria
> > To: ;
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Lord
Hastings
> >
> >
> > The last Ricardian Bulletin had the first part of a two-part
article on Hastings; part 2 due out in the next issue, and the topic
is to be speculation on Hastings' motives in 1483. Looking forward to
this because I've always felt we don't have a lot of concrete
information on this man. A few years ago, I started a research
project, which was aborted due to practicalities. However, I can say
that Hastings had a few complications in his character. For example:
he was receiving a pension from Charles the Bold. In the aftermath of
Edward's French campaign, according to Commines, the following
incident took place (this is a cut-and-paste from an article I had
been working on):
> >
> > In 1475, Hastings went to France with Edward. He was no happier
than Richard with the ending of the French, but his protest and the
repercussions of it reveal that same sense of finesse and graceful
persuasion that had been evident in 1459. Commines was assigned by
Louis to bring Hastings around. Commines wrote to Hastings several
times, and then, Louis sent his chief steward, Pierre Claret to
Edward’s friend. Claret brought 2,000 crowns, and strict orders
from Louis to get a receipt for the amount from Hastings. They met in
London, and Hastings took the money but signed nothing for it. Claret
begged for a letter to Louis acknowledging receipt of the money, so
that Claret would be protected from an accusation of the theft of
2,000 crowns. Hastings agreed to the terms on the condition that it
be made clear that the money was being given “from the good will of
your master, not at my request. If you want me to take it, put it
here in my sleeve, but there will be no letter or witness. I do not
want it said that the chamberlain of England is the pensioner of the
King of France and that my receipts are to be found in his
exchequer.†Louis was disappointed but appreciative, and continued
the 2,000 crown pension despite the absence of a receipt.
> >
> > And he still continued to collect the pension from Charles.
Pretty slick, if you ask me! Certainly someone who looked after his
own interests and understood the concept of the loophole. When you
put this together with a story (which I haven't yet found the root
to, and therefore can't verify) that Hasting apparently commented
that Edward wouldn't live long and there'd be trouble when the king
died, I find a character of intelligence and some subtilty.
> >
> > I wonder, sometimes, what Richard heard on his way to Stony
Stratford, or what he might have found in London after his arrival
there, and why he decided to trust so completely in Buckingham.
That's the big mystery. There must have been something, and it may
have had something to do with this apparent abilty of Hastings
to "finesse". This will take continued digging, but I'm sure there
was something, real, imagined, supposed, or suspected, that closed
the door between Richard and Hastings. There may be something to the
stories of Hastings urging Edward on the decadent road, though I have
my doubts. It may have something to do with steps he might have taken
during the year or less that he suspected Edward wouldn't survive,
though I don't know. It may have been, ultimately, innocent of
criminal activity, but enough to push things in the wrong direction.
Whatever it was, it was definite enough in Richard's mind to shut
Hastings out and treat Buckingham to a galore of promotions. If I'd
been Hastings at that point, I would have been angry and fearful of
what I might lose.
> >
> > I have no doubt that you're correct in that Hastings' discontent
and possible actions in the late spring of 1483 were prompted by this
meteor known as Harry Stafford. In my play, which was produced a few
years ago, I launch a plot on the following speculation:
> >
> > Edward IV's death did not automatically guarantee a safe
coronation for his son because there were people, close to the center
of government, personified by Bishop Morton, who would have always
considered Edward a usurper. Morton was a loyal Lancastrian, and
though he threw his support behind the Yorkist victor, there was
nothing necessarily to hold him to the boy who was, in his mind, the
son of a usurper. He would have happily turned to his original
loyalty, in this case on Henry Tudor and mama Margaret Beaufort. I am
guessing that this would have been one of the troubles Hastings would
have foreseen. Conflict with the Woodvilles would have been another.
Loss of power to Buckingham, lack of confidence from Richard, a
possible leak of Bishop Stillington's little news flash, and the
instinct for self-preservation, may have, indeed, pushed Hastings to
a decision to join Thomas Stanley, Bishop Morton and Mrs. Stanley
(aka Margaret Beaufort) into promoting Henry Tudor over Edward V
and/or Richard. If this was the case, then, according to the Yorkist,
it would have been treason, whether conspiracy would have been aimed
at dislodging Edward V, Richard, or both (and, of course, Buckingham
into the bargain), and the execution, though not necessarily the
manner of it, would have been justified.
> >
> > Incidentally, around the 1460s, an oddly similar and nasty power
struggle was taking place in Castile between Juan Pacheco, Marques of
Villena, and Miguel Lucas, one-time protoge of Villena (ironic that)
and newly-minted Condestable of Castile under the wavering power of
Enrique IV.
> >
> > This is a rush job from work, begun and cut off many times, and
I apologize in advance.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@...
> >
> > ----------
> > >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> > >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 6:30 AM
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Richard and Lord Hastings
> > >
> > >Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings
appeared to be on Richard's
> > >side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It
seems he only become
> > >disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy
caused by Buckingham's rapid
> > >advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind
of betrayal. It must have
> > >made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage.
Would Richard not have been
> > >wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very
unfair to Hastings?And does
> > >Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad
judgement on Richard's part?
> > >Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to
be a huge misjudgement.
> > >Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue
creature living ......him that had
> > >best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the
benefit of hindsight but even so
> > >............
> > >Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned
out differently if he had kept
> > >Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of
difference in the end .......?
> > >Eileen
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
2008-04-30 13:08:55
Thanks! Just joined up.
Maria
elena@...
-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>Sent: Apr 30, 2008 4:47 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
>
>--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for that, Stephen -- should I just Google "Sceptred Isle" to
>find the group?
>>
>> Maria
>>
>No, just try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sceptredisle/?
>yguid=279896267; it is another Yahoo group and we Ricardians are
>quite prominent on it!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 5:16 PM
>> >To:
>> >Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
>> >
>> >Maria,
>> >
>> >There is a great C16 discussion on "Sceptred Isle" at present and
>your Iberian input could be useful,
>> >
>> >Stephen
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Maria
>> > To: ;
>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:42 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Richard and Lord
>Hastings
>> >
>> >
>> > The last Ricardian Bulletin had the first part of a two-part
>article on Hastings; part 2 due out in the next issue, and the topic
>is to be speculation on Hastings' motives in 1483. Looking forward to
>this because I've always felt we don't have a lot of concrete
>information on this man. A few years ago, I started a research
>project, which was aborted due to practicalities. However, I can say
>that Hastings had a few complications in his character. For example:
>he was receiving a pension from Charles the Bold. In the aftermath of
>Edward's French campaign, according to Commines, the following
>incident took place (this is a cut-and-paste from an article I had
>been working on):
>> >
>> > In 1475, Hastings went to France with Edward. He was no happier
>than Richard with the ending of the French, but his protest and the
>repercussions of it reveal that same sense of finesse and graceful
>persuasion that had been evident in 1459. Commines was assigned by
>Louis to bring Hastings around. Commines wrote to Hastings several
>times, and then, Louis sent his chief steward, Pierre Claret to
>Edward’s friend. Claret brought 2,000 crowns, and strict orders
>from Louis to get a receipt for the amount from Hastings. They met in
>London, and Hastings took the money but signed nothing for it. Claret
>begged for a letter to Louis acknowledging receipt of the money, so
>that Claret would be protected from an accusation of the theft of
>2,000 crowns. Hastings agreed to the terms on the condition that it
>be made clear that the money was being given “from the good will of
>your master, not at my request. If you want me to take it, put it
>here in my sleeve, but there will be no letter or witness. I do not
>want it said that the chamberlain of England is the pensioner of the
>King of France and that my receipts are to be found in his
>exchequer.†Louis was disappointed but appreciative, and continued
>the 2,000 crown pension despite the absence of a receipt.
>> >
>> > And he still continued to collect the pension from Charles.
>Pretty slick, if you ask me! Certainly someone who looked after his
>own interests and understood the concept of the loophole. When you
>put this together with a story (which I haven't yet found the root
>to, and therefore can't verify) that Hasting apparently commented
>that Edward wouldn't live long and there'd be trouble when the king
>died, I find a character of intelligence and some subtilty.
>> >
>> > I wonder, sometimes, what Richard heard on his way to Stony
>Stratford, or what he might have found in London after his arrival
>there, and why he decided to trust so completely in Buckingham.
>That's the big mystery. There must have been something, and it may
>have had something to do with this apparent abilty of Hastings
>to "finesse". This will take continued digging, but I'm sure there
>was something, real, imagined, supposed, or suspected, that closed
>the door between Richard and Hastings. There may be something to the
>stories of Hastings urging Edward on the decadent road, though I have
>my doubts. It may have something to do with steps he might have taken
>during the year or less that he suspected Edward wouldn't survive,
>though I don't know. It may have been, ultimately, innocent of
>criminal activity, but enough to push things in the wrong direction.
>Whatever it was, it was definite enough in Richard's mind to shut
>Hastings out and treat Buckingham to a galore of promotions. If I'd
>been Hastings at that point, I would have been angry and fearful of
>what I might lose.
>> >
>> > I have no doubt that you're correct in that Hastings' discontent
>and possible actions in the late spring of 1483 were prompted by this
>meteor known as Harry Stafford. In my play, which was produced a few
>years ago, I launch a plot on the following speculation:
>> >
>> > Edward IV's death did not automatically guarantee a safe
>coronation for his son because there were people, close to the center
>of government, personified by Bishop Morton, who would have always
>considered Edward a usurper. Morton was a loyal Lancastrian, and
>though he threw his support behind the Yorkist victor, there was
>nothing necessarily to hold him to the boy who was, in his mind, the
>son of a usurper. He would have happily turned to his original
>loyalty, in this case on Henry Tudor and mama Margaret Beaufort. I am
>guessing that this would have been one of the troubles Hastings would
>have foreseen. Conflict with the Woodvilles would have been another.
>Loss of power to Buckingham, lack of confidence from Richard, a
>possible leak of Bishop Stillington's little news flash, and the
>instinct for self-preservation, may have, indeed, pushed Hastings to
>a decision to join Thomas Stanley, Bishop Morton and Mrs. Stanley
>(aka Margaret Beaufort) into promoting Henry Tudor over Edward V
>and/or Richard. If this was the case, then, according to the Yorkist,
>it would have been treason, whether conspiracy would have been aimed
>at dislodging Edward V, Richard, or both (and, of course, Buckingham
>into the bargain), and the execution, though not necessarily the
>manner of it, would have been justified.
>> >
>> > Incidentally, around the 1460s, an oddly similar and nasty power
>struggle was taking place in Castile between Juan Pacheco, Marques of
>Villena, and Miguel Lucas, one-time protoge of Villena (ironic that)
>and newly-minted Condestable of Castile under the wavering power of
>Enrique IV.
>> >
>> > This is a rush job from work, begun and cut off many times, and
>I apologize in advance.
>> >
>> > Maria
>> > elena@...
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
>> > >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 6:30 AM
>> > >To:
>> > >Subject: Richard and Lord Hastings
>> > >
>> > >Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings
>appeared to be on Richard's
>> > >side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It
>seems he only become
>> > >disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy
>caused by Buckingham's rapid
>> > >advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind
>of betrayal. It must have
>> > >made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage.
>Would Richard not have been
>> > >wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very
>unfair to Hastings?And does
>> > >Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad
>judgement on Richard's part?
>> > >Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to
>be a huge misjudgement.
>> > >Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue
>creature living ......him that had
>> > >best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the
>benefit of hindsight but even so
>> > >............
>> > >Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned
>out differently if he had kept
>> > >Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of
>difference in the end .......?
>> > >Eileen
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Maria
elena@...
-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>Sent: Apr 30, 2008 4:47 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
>
>--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for that, Stephen -- should I just Google "Sceptred Isle" to
>find the group?
>>
>> Maria
>>
>No, just try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sceptredisle/?
>yguid=279896267; it is another Yahoo group and we Ricardians are
>quite prominent on it!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 5:16 PM
>> >To:
>> >Subject: Re: Richard and Lord Hastings
>> >
>> >Maria,
>> >
>> >There is a great C16 discussion on "Sceptred Isle" at present and
>your Iberian input could be useful,
>> >
>> >Stephen
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Maria
>> > To: ;
>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:42 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Richard and Lord
>Hastings
>> >
>> >
>> > The last Ricardian Bulletin had the first part of a two-part
>article on Hastings; part 2 due out in the next issue, and the topic
>is to be speculation on Hastings' motives in 1483. Looking forward to
>this because I've always felt we don't have a lot of concrete
>information on this man. A few years ago, I started a research
>project, which was aborted due to practicalities. However, I can say
>that Hastings had a few complications in his character. For example:
>he was receiving a pension from Charles the Bold. In the aftermath of
>Edward's French campaign, according to Commines, the following
>incident took place (this is a cut-and-paste from an article I had
>been working on):
>> >
>> > In 1475, Hastings went to France with Edward. He was no happier
>than Richard with the ending of the French, but his protest and the
>repercussions of it reveal that same sense of finesse and graceful
>persuasion that had been evident in 1459. Commines was assigned by
>Louis to bring Hastings around. Commines wrote to Hastings several
>times, and then, Louis sent his chief steward, Pierre Claret to
>Edward’s friend. Claret brought 2,000 crowns, and strict orders
>from Louis to get a receipt for the amount from Hastings. They met in
>London, and Hastings took the money but signed nothing for it. Claret
>begged for a letter to Louis acknowledging receipt of the money, so
>that Claret would be protected from an accusation of the theft of
>2,000 crowns. Hastings agreed to the terms on the condition that it
>be made clear that the money was being given “from the good will of
>your master, not at my request. If you want me to take it, put it
>here in my sleeve, but there will be no letter or witness. I do not
>want it said that the chamberlain of England is the pensioner of the
>King of France and that my receipts are to be found in his
>exchequer.†Louis was disappointed but appreciative, and continued
>the 2,000 crown pension despite the absence of a receipt.
>> >
>> > And he still continued to collect the pension from Charles.
>Pretty slick, if you ask me! Certainly someone who looked after his
>own interests and understood the concept of the loophole. When you
>put this together with a story (which I haven't yet found the root
>to, and therefore can't verify) that Hasting apparently commented
>that Edward wouldn't live long and there'd be trouble when the king
>died, I find a character of intelligence and some subtilty.
>> >
>> > I wonder, sometimes, what Richard heard on his way to Stony
>Stratford, or what he might have found in London after his arrival
>there, and why he decided to trust so completely in Buckingham.
>That's the big mystery. There must have been something, and it may
>have had something to do with this apparent abilty of Hastings
>to "finesse". This will take continued digging, but I'm sure there
>was something, real, imagined, supposed, or suspected, that closed
>the door between Richard and Hastings. There may be something to the
>stories of Hastings urging Edward on the decadent road, though I have
>my doubts. It may have something to do with steps he might have taken
>during the year or less that he suspected Edward wouldn't survive,
>though I don't know. It may have been, ultimately, innocent of
>criminal activity, but enough to push things in the wrong direction.
>Whatever it was, it was definite enough in Richard's mind to shut
>Hastings out and treat Buckingham to a galore of promotions. If I'd
>been Hastings at that point, I would have been angry and fearful of
>what I might lose.
>> >
>> > I have no doubt that you're correct in that Hastings' discontent
>and possible actions in the late spring of 1483 were prompted by this
>meteor known as Harry Stafford. In my play, which was produced a few
>years ago, I launch a plot on the following speculation:
>> >
>> > Edward IV's death did not automatically guarantee a safe
>coronation for his son because there were people, close to the center
>of government, personified by Bishop Morton, who would have always
>considered Edward a usurper. Morton was a loyal Lancastrian, and
>though he threw his support behind the Yorkist victor, there was
>nothing necessarily to hold him to the boy who was, in his mind, the
>son of a usurper. He would have happily turned to his original
>loyalty, in this case on Henry Tudor and mama Margaret Beaufort. I am
>guessing that this would have been one of the troubles Hastings would
>have foreseen. Conflict with the Woodvilles would have been another.
>Loss of power to Buckingham, lack of confidence from Richard, a
>possible leak of Bishop Stillington's little news flash, and the
>instinct for self-preservation, may have, indeed, pushed Hastings to
>a decision to join Thomas Stanley, Bishop Morton and Mrs. Stanley
>(aka Margaret Beaufort) into promoting Henry Tudor over Edward V
>and/or Richard. If this was the case, then, according to the Yorkist,
>it would have been treason, whether conspiracy would have been aimed
>at dislodging Edward V, Richard, or both (and, of course, Buckingham
>into the bargain), and the execution, though not necessarily the
>manner of it, would have been justified.
>> >
>> > Incidentally, around the 1460s, an oddly similar and nasty power
>struggle was taking place in Castile between Juan Pacheco, Marques of
>Villena, and Miguel Lucas, one-time protoge of Villena (ironic that)
>and newly-minted Condestable of Castile under the wavering power of
>Enrique IV.
>> >
>> > This is a rush job from work, begun and cut off many times, and
>I apologize in advance.
>> >
>> > Maria
>> > elena@...
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > >From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
>> > >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 6:30 AM
>> > >To:
>> > >Subject: Richard and Lord Hastings
>> > >
>> > >Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings? Hastings
>appeared to be on Richard's
>> > >side in the beginning, warning him of the Woodville plot. It
>seems he only become
>> > >disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy
>caused by Buckingham's rapid
>> > >advancement which he must have perceived as unfair and a kind
>of betrayal. It must have
>> > >made him very bitter and how he must have seethed with rage.
>Would Richard not have been
>> > >wiser to have kept Hastings a happy man. Was he in fact very
>unfair to Hastings?And does
>> > >Richard's handling of Hastings indicate a serious case of bad
>judgement on Richard's part?
>> > >Richard's faith and trust in Buckingham certainly turned out to
>be a huge misjudgement.
>> > >Hence his description of Buckingham as "the most untrue
>creature living ......him that had
>> > >best cause to be true". Of course Richard did not have the
>benefit of hindsight but even so
>> > >............
>> > >Finally, is there the possibility that things may have panned
>out differently if he had kept
>> > >Hastings on board or would it not have made an iota of
>difference in the end .......?
>> > >Eileen
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.