Hastings' motives

Sorry about the delay in replying, but took a while to get this properly thought out and typed up.
On 4/29/2008 at 5:30AM, eileen wrote: "Did Richard mess up big time when he upset Hastings?...It seems he only became disenchanted with Richard because of feelings of jealousy caused by Buckingham's rapid advancement..." How about this for Hasting's actions? -
Hastings supported Richard in April, 1483; yet plotted his (and Buckingham's) death in June 1483. Might what upset Hasting's have been, not his replacement in Richard's councils by Buckingham, but the fact that by June Richard was no longer Edward V's Protector; he had become Edward's potential supplanter. Could it simply be that Hastings never supported Richard as Richard, Duke of Gloucester; but only supported Richard in his role as Protector of Edward V? And once it became apparent that Richard was probably going to replace Edward V, Hastings plotted to prevent him rom so doing.
This could explain why Buckingham was also to be murdered. Both dukes were well-known figures who could command wide support, not only among the Yorkists, but among all but the most dedicated Lancastrians as well. Remove these two men as potential rulers and what choice does the Council have about keeping Edward V on the throne? There were Yorkist candidates, true; but none of the adult candidates were of sufficient authority to step into the positions held by either Richard or Buckingham. And if the alternative to an adult Yorkist was a child Yorkist, why not keep Edward V?
Since the Council has not, as yet, officially pronounced on the validity of Bishop Stillington's revelations (hence Richard's unease at Sha's St. Paul sermon?), the Bishop could be gotten to either retract what he had presented to the Council by putting the blame on a dead Richard or, if the Bishop refused to perjure himself, toss him into prison as Henry Tudor did.
Hastings had been Edward IV's chamberlain and, if the Woodvilles were removed from power, could be nearly as powerful under Edward V - serving perhaps as a father-figure/mentor and definitely as someone who knew how to wield power. Under Richard he would, at best, be an advisor on the periphery of the court, valued for what he knew of affairs under Edward IV and most likely nothing more.
Hope this makes some sense,
Doug

And/or vice versa?

The consensus about Hastings is that he was unquestioningly loyal to young Edward V, but I do wonder about this sometimes:

As you noted, Hastings' position depended heavily on his relationship to Edward IV.
Hastings lost an essential support to his own standing after Edward died.
There was definite tension between Hastings and the Woodvilles. This was exacerbated by the events immediately following Edward's death.
Edward V, raised and educated by Anthony Woodville over at Ludlow, would, reasonably, be likely to support Woodville/maternal policies, therefore, reasonably, less likely to support Hastings in any conflict between himself and the Woodville clan.
Hastings, therefore, would need a new support in the new regime, and he, reasonably, turned to Richard; however, somewhere between Yorkshire and the entry into London, a bond between Richard and Buckingham was sealed.

So. As of between the entry of Edward V into London and June 13, Hastings found his standing less secure than he would have liked. I think that, probably, even if he did manage to become Protector, his hold on any real power would only last until Edward V came of age, which meant only a couple of years. My guess is that Edward V, in power, would be more inclined to rehabiliate the Woodvilles than to support either Hastings or Richard/Buckingham. So, no matter who was Protector, as long as Edward V was slated to come to power, Hastings wasn't going to be secure.

(He was also drawing a pension from both Louis XI of France and Charles the Bold of Burgundy: a neat trick, I must say, and one that might have eventually been questioned without the tolerant oversight of Edward IV. Add the fact that Louis was also on his last legs in 1483, and Hastings' financial situation becomes potentially a little more precarious anyway).

This is why I don't think Hastings' tie-in to Morton and Thomas Stanley on June 13, 1483 was unreasonable. Morton was a Lancastrian, loyal once to Margaret of Anjou, loyal later to Henry Tudor, serving time intelligently under Edward IV in the interim. There wasn't too much choice for Morton after Tewkesbury, but he probably never stopped viewing Edward IV as a usurper, and would not have held himself accountable for any oath of loyalty to the usurper's son. He was probably throwing his support to Margaret Beaufort pretty quickly. Tommy Stanley, of course, was Margaret Beaufort's husband (a fact that, I think, he came to regret more and more as the years went on). Hastings may have found himself unable to persuade himself not to come into the Tudor camp -- if this is right, I'm sure he regretted it, and I'm sure that he had many unquiet nights. If this is correct, and he was a recruit, he would have been a very unwilling one. And it might also go some way to explain the jangled circumstances of his conviction and execution.

Anyway, that's another two cents thrown into the kitty for consideration.

Maria
elena@...

=======================

>...Evidently, either Richard did not bid high enough,
>or Hastings simply didn't trust him.
>
>Brian W
>
>

Very thoughtful posts on Hastings and his motives. A pension from Louis
XI? Maybe there really was something

to that Edward IV poisoning story! Just kidding!

Whatever it was to set Richard off, it must have been devastating to
him. If it was that Hastings was a member of a

conspiracy to kill Richard, how come only Hastings was summarily executed?
A conspiracy denotes more than one p3rson

so what about the others? I realize he couldn't have executed Morton, since
he was a priest., but why not the other conspirators?

Why was Hastings singled out? It has always puzzled me.



L.M.L.,

Janet

I found the story, courtesy of M. Commines' chronicles, while hunting for data on Hastings for an article that made its way to the LMB website long ago. Here's the quote from my article:

"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, in order to get Hastings' indebtedness on record. The French steward and the English chamberlain met in London. 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. In fact, Hastings managed to get the best of most worlds: He was, indeed, paid off by Louis; he kept the French king's good impression; Charles' [the Bold] good impression; and he collected a total of 3,000 crowns a year from two mutual enemies."

I say that's pretty slick thinking there!

Maria
elena@...

----------
>From: Janet Trimbath <forevere@...>
>Sent: Jun 18, 2008 7:20 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Hastings' motives
>
> Very thoughtful posts on Hastings and his motives. A pension from Louis
>XI? Maybe there really was something
>
>to that Edward IV poisoning story! Just kidding!
>
> Whatever it was to set Richard off, it must have been devastating to
>him. If it was that Hastings was a member of a
>
>conspiracy to kill Richard, how come only Hastings was summarily executed?
>A conspiracy denotes more than one p3rson
>
>so what about the others? I realize he couldn't have executed Morton, since
>he was a priest., but why not the other conspirators?
>
>Why was Hastings singled out? It has always puzzled me.
>
>
>
>L.M.L.,
>
>Janet
>
>
>
>
>