lord hastings

ok he was edward IV's right hand man and was also of royal blood.
the facts are that he opposed the woodvilles when the king was alive.
once edward was dead he knew that it wouldn't belong before he would
be executed for treason or some other trumped up charge.

at this moment in time he had no reason to distrust richard.
they had fought together at barnet and tewkesbury both loyal to edward

also he would never have dreamt in supporting henry tudor - his
loyalty was now to edward v

ok he informs richard who is in the north who immedietely responds
if he did not trust richard then the woodvilles would have had an
advantage of bringing edward from ludlow to london where he could have
hastily been proclaimed king - a woodvilles puppet.

>From: mezzathewizzard <mezzathewizzard@...>
>Sent: Jun 18, 2008 6:37 AM
>To:
>Subject: lord hastings
>
>ok he was edward IV's right hand man and was also of royal blood.
>the facts are that he opposed the woodvilles when the king was alive.
>once edward was dead he knew that it wouldn't belong before he would
>be executed for treason or some other trumped up charge.

=====================
Definitely of old and respected family, but not of royal blood. Still, an old friend and Yorkist ally, friends with Duke Richard of York even before becoming Edward's steadfast friend.
=====================

>at this moment in time he had no reason to distrust richard.
>they had fought together at barnet and tewkesbury both loyal to edward

=================
Agreed.
=================

>
>also he would never have dreamt in supporting henry tudor - his
>loyalty was now to edward v

=================
For sure, at least until matters started getting very complicated after May 1483. As I look at Hastings' position, both real and as might have been perceived by him, I see him finding things getting more untenable as time went on. There wasn't a lot of time before Edward V would be considered capable of making his own decisions: Henry VI, Richard II and Juan II of Castile were all wielding their own power by age 16 or less. In the 1460s, Alfonso, 14 years old, younger brother of Isabel the Catholic, was leading an army against his half-brother Enrique IV, and getting miffed that the Bohemian traveling party led by Rozmital had visited Enrique as king before paying respects to him. Isabel herself negotiated a fragile peace with Enrique after the death of still 14-year old Alfonso. She was all of 16. So there weren't a lot of years before young Edward V would presumably start taking matters into his own hands.

I don't see it as an impossibility that, in view of a perception that Edward V might end up not being loyal to *him*, and that this might finish with Hastings in a lion's den of restored Woodvilles (and Lord knows where and how Richard/Buckingham might have ended up once Edward V reached the age of independence), he might have felt moved to take steps for self-preservation. His handling of the French and Burgundian pensions is an indication of a sharp mind capable of straddling both sides of an issue; and his commitment to Morton might have been a very interesting scene (if it happened).

Maria
elena@...

--- In , "mezzathewizzard"
<mezzathewizzard@...> wrote:
>
> ok he was edward IV's right hand man and was also of royal blood.
> the facts are that he opposed the woodvilles when the king was alive.
> once edward was dead he knew that it wouldn't belong before he would
> be executed for treason or some other trumped up charge.



You're referring to Buckingham, aren't you, despite the "Re lord
hastings" subject line? Hastings certainly wasn't of royal blood.



Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mezzathewizzard"
> <mezzathewizzard@> wrote:
> >
> > ok he was edward IV's right hand man and was also of royal blood.
> > the facts are that he opposed the woodvilles when the king was alive.
> > once edward was dead he knew that it wouldn't belong before he would
> > be executed for treason or some other trumped up charge.
>
>
>
> You're referring to Buckingham, aren't you, despite the "Re lord
> hastings" subject line? Hastings certainly wasn't of royal blood.
>




I take it back. Hastings had some royal blood -- his great-great
grandfather was Edward III. But he had a lot less royal blood than
Buckingham, who was a royal duke with probably the best claim to the
throne after Richard III and his son.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
> You're referring to Buckingham, aren't you, despite the "Re lord
> hastings" subject line? Hastings certainly wasn't of royal blood.
>
> Katy
>

I'm relying on memory here, which is a dangerous thing to do with my
rather mushy brain, but I'm pretty sure Hastings descended from the
Mortimers. To be specific, IIRC his g-grandmother was Elizabeth
Mortimer, by her second husband Lord Camoys. This put him in
cousinship to the Yorks.

In addition, the Hastings clan had served the York family for several
generations. This closeness might explain why Richard felt doubly
angry if he considered himself betrayed.

Brian W

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "mezzathewizzard"
> > <mezzathewizzard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > ok he was edward IV's right hand man and was also of royal blood.
> > > the facts are that he opposed the woodvilles when the king was
alive.
> > > once edward was dead he knew that it wouldn't belong before he
would
> > > be executed for treason or some other trumped up charge.
> >
> >
> >
> > You're referring to Buckingham, aren't you, despite the "Re lord
> > hastings" subject line? Hastings certainly wasn't of royal blood.
> >
>
>
>
>
> I take it back. Hastings had some royal blood -- his great-great
> grandfather was Edward III. But he had a lot less royal blood than
> Buckingham, who was a royal duke with probably the best claim to the
> throne after Richard III and his son.
>



Make that great-great grandson of Edward III in Buckingham's case as
well as Hastings'

Katy

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> > You're referring to Buckingham, aren't you, despite the "Re lord
> > hastings" subject line? Hastings certainly wasn't of royal blood.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
> I'm relying on memory here, which is a dangerous thing to do with my
> rather mushy brain, but I'm pretty sure Hastings descended from the
> Mortimers. To be specific, IIRC his g-grandmother was Elizabeth
> Mortimer, by her second husband Lord Camoys. This put him in
> cousinship to the Yorks.
>
> In addition, the Hastings clan had served the York family for several
> generations. This closeness might explain why Richard felt doubly
> angry if he considered himself betrayed.
>


Hastings' mother was a daughter of Elizabeth Mortimer, who was the
daughter of Edmund Mortimer and Philippa, the daughter of Lionel of
Antwerp, the second son of Edward III.

Buckingham's grandfather, Humphrey Stafford, was the son of Anne of
Gloucester, the daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, the youngest son of
of Edward III.

So they were both second cousins of Edward IV, Richard III, etc.

A good rule of thumb is "everyone is related to everyone".

Katy