Hastings

by Annette Carson

The controversy about William, Baron Hastings, revolves around his execution on 13th June 1483, and whether it was a political murder as sometimes is alleged. There are three main accounts to investigate, namely:

1. Shakespeare, Thomas More and various Tudor chroniclers (16th century).
2. The Crowland Chronicle and Domenico Mancini (1480s).
3. Historical Research.

Shakespeare wrote fictitious theatrical dramas of which some were based more or less loosely on historical events and characters; his plays have memorable scenes, such as the arrest of Hastings, that were once taken as history. Nowadays we know better. His play about Richard III, written a century after the events depicted was ultimately derived from a work of dramatic imagination by Thomas More who was an infant during the reign of Richard III. In the opinion of his leading editor, Richard Sylvester, More based what he wrote on the tales and opinions about Richard III that were current among people at the time he wrote, at least 30 years after Richard’s reign. More’s exercise on Richard III is an enigma. He had at minimum five versions in preparation, never finished it, and never referred to it anywhere in his writings or communications.

Thomas More’s ‘Richard III’ story was furnished with lengthy sections of elaborate dialogue spoken by various characters, and in his tale of Hastings he included dramatic predictions, nightmares and evil omens. The work is often regarded as proto-theatrical. Its date of writing is a matter of debate and its first publication was posthumous and unauthorized. His family then issued what they considered to be a ‘correct’ text, although yet more versions of the same material continued to be printed in different formats. Numbers of Tudor chroniclers copied and adapted it before Shakespeare did the same. Although based on the received opinion that predominated in the Tudor era, it is littered with inaccuracies and not a few untruths, It should not be regarded as a record of history, nor assumed that it was intended as such.

From Shakespeare and More we get the following stories relating to the scene of Hastings’s arrest. They are uncorroborated by historical research, i.e. there is no evidence for any of them:

• Richard and Hastings were close friends and co-conspirators.
• Aiming to usurp the throne, Richard arranged to find out whether Hastings would support his ambition.
• Hastings revealed his opposition to a third party, so Richard decided to eliminate him.
• In a Council meeting at the Tower of London Richard accused Queen Elizabeth Woodville and ‘Jane’ (Elizabeth) Shore, with whom Hastings was carrying on a liaison, of using witchcraft to wither one of his arms which had actually been withered since birth.
• When Hastings demurred, Richard had him arrested as a traitor and marched off to be beheaded, before he went to dinner, using a makeshift block.

No modern historian would be taken seriously if he or she quoted any of the aforementioned tales as if they were factual. The story of Richard’s ‘withered arm’ was debunked during the discovery of his mortal remains in 2012.

2. The Crowland Chronicle (1485) and Domenico Mancini de occupatione regni Anglie (1483) These two documents of the 1480s provided accounts of how they viewed Hastings’s execution. There is bias and inaccuracy in both narratives, but they are the nearest we have to contemporary accounts.

The chronicle of Crowland Abbey was written anonymously by someone who was familiar with governmental circles. Referring to discussions within the King’s Council in April 1483, it reports that ‘much ill-will’ had long existed between Hastings and the relatives of Queen Elizabeth Woodville, which Mancini confirms. Historical documents indicate that Hastings, seeking to lay accusations against his Woodville enemies, suborned a man to perjure himself.

After Edward IV’s death the queen’s family, who had charge of the heir (Edward V) at Ludlow, proposed to bring him to London with an armed escort. Hastings, who was Captain of the Calais garrison, is quoted as saying he would ‘rather flee there’ than remain vulnerable to the vengeance of the Woodville clan if they brought more than a moderate force. It is reasonable to accept these quotations as actual remarks by Hastings, and as an indication that he had sent communications to Richard. However, there is no indication that he received any reply and his assumptions as to the size of Richard’s company are questionable.

After Richard had dismissed the new king’s escort and taken over his onward progress to London, the Woodville party ‘stood by at Westminster in the name of the queen’ (confirmed by Mancini: they ‘started to raise an army’). Others in the capital, according to Crowland, sought the protection of Hastings. The Italian Polydore Vergil, writing at the same time as More, uniquely disputes this: his version says that Hastings disavowed Richard of Gloucester’s actions. We can safely dismiss this error in the light of the near-contemporary Crowland Chronicle’s report that Hastings was ‘bursting with joy over this new world’. Further remarks in the chronicle leave no doubt as to Hastings’s delight that Richard had neutralized the Woodville’s power.

The chronicle’s final entry about Hastings states that ‘a very few days after these words’ (actually six weeks later) Lord Hastings was beheaded and others were imprisoned. This is true. ‘In this way, without justice or judgement, the three strongest supports of the new king were removed.’ This is opinion.

Domenico Mancini was a Franco-Italian visitor with no personal access in highly placed circles, who relied heavily on information received from local Londoners. As with Crowland, Mancini is useful when he outlines events, but less so when offering opinions on them. Writing within months of the execution, his portrait of Hastings is of Edward IV’s right-hand man and confidant, and one who encouraged the late king in his degenerate appetites and insolence towards women. His feud with the queen’s eldest son was ‘on account of the mistresses they had abducted or seduced from each other.’ The shared mistresses may have some basis in fact: the Great Chronicle records the distraint of certain goods in the possession of Edward IV’s mistress Elizabeth Shore, in order to return them to Hastings’s widow.

Hastings’s next appearance in Mancini is as Richard’s alleged long-standing friend and co-conspirator which probably explains how Thomas More came to characterize him thus, although no historical record corroborates such friendship or conspiracy. Indeed, such a relationship is contra-indicated by Richard’s well attested abhorrence of ‘sensuality and concupiscence’ on the part of ‘such as had the rule and governance’ in Edward IV’s latter days, ‘so that no man was sure of his…wife, daughter or servant, every good maiden and woman standing in dread to be ravished and defouled.’ (Titulus Regius, 1484).

Mancini’s account also makes a well documented mistake in chronology. When the Queen is persuaded to allow Edward V’s younger brother to attend his coronation, he incorrectly places this occurrence before the execution of Hastings (it actually occurred three days afterwards). The reversal of dates makes it fit Mancini’s argument that Richard, aiming for the crown, first took into his power ‘all the blood royal’ before proceeding to eliminate Hastings. This error is repeated by Thomas More and his followers.

Mancini then paints the only detailed contemporary picture we have of how Hastings earnt his execution, which is very different from the Tudor stories. He states that Richard had ascertained the loyalties of a group of men that included Bishop Morton, Archbishop Rotherham and William Hastings, and discovered they gathered privately in each others’ homes. Accordingly…

‘…when these three and several others had come to the Tower of London on a certain day…(Richard) by prearrangement called out that a trap had been set for him, and that these men had come with concealed weapons so that they could be the first to unleash a violent attack. At that, soldiers who had been stationed there by their lord came running in with the Duke of Buckingham and beheaded Hastings by the sword under the false name of treason; the others they detained.’

Later, when the news caused consternation in London, ‘the duke at once quieted the people by sending a herald to proclaim that a trap had been detected in the fortress and the author of the plot, Hastings, had paid the penalty’. The terms of this proclamation, and confirmation of the conspiracy at which Mancini hints, are found in a document in the possession of the College of Arms which historians calculate must have been noted down in the 1480s probably by 1487. In modern English it says that ‘certain men planned the death of the Duke of Gloucester, but the plan was discovered and Lord Hastings was taken in the Tower and beheaded forthwith. In addition were arrested Morton, Rotherham, Oliver King (the king’s secretary), together with others’. There was much that Mancini failed to understand, but it is unlikely he misunderstood a direct public proclamation.

The careful reader will take into account that Mancini relied on informants. He was not present himself and, being unfamiliar with the English system of governance, could not pronounce on the law of treason (see below). A précis of his report leaves us with an accusation of an attempt on Richard’s life by a group who had brought concealed weapons into the Duke’s presence, with summary justice meted out to the ringleader and subsequently announced to the citizenry in proclamation.

3. Historical research. The popularly known narratives mentioned above were not produced by poring over documentary evidence, Modern-day research into surviving records has revealed more about the combination of events that led up to rounding-up of conspirators on 13th June. Every historian now knows that (a) a charge had recently been made that Edward IV’s son could not inherit because his parents’ marriage was invalid, although this had not by then affected plans for his coronation; and (b) Richard perceived an active threat from certain antagonists which led him to send to allies on 10th June for a defensive force. Either of these two factors could point to Hastings’ attempt on Richard, or, indeed, neither. Records also show that (c) during Edward V’s protectorate Hastings’s share of rewards was meagre and kept him away from court circles, not surprisingly in view of Richard’s condemnation of debauchery at court. With Hastings’ Woodville enemies now disparaged, powerless and out of circulation, the suggestion that he allied with them is unlikely. They were of no immediate use in his plan of attack, and had little to offer this man who enjoyed considerable wealth and controlled one of the largest forces of personal retainers in the realm. In summary, the historical record does not reveal Hastings’s motivation or long-term plan.

We can, at least, disprove the well-worn stories of More and Shakespeare since we have a countervailing account written within a few months of the event by Mancini who was in London at the time and taking notes. The College of Arms document provides corroboration of his report of the proclamation. And the idea of Hastings being a victim singled out for personal vengeance is disproved by the number of co-conspirators arrested and imprisoned.

Trial and execution. We would be remiss if we did not explain how this could legally take place. It requires a knowledge of the unwritten English constitution in the 1480s which, just as today, was governed by an accumulation of respected conventions and precedents.

15th century protectorates. This form of government was put in place during the minority of 12-year-old Edward V until he was old enough to rule in his own right. Protectorates had been instituted three times previously by parliamentary statute. The administration of government was carried out by the King’s Council, while the primary responsibility of the Protector was the protection of the realm against unrest, insurrection or external threat. He sat with the Council and was chief adviser to the king. The laws of treason of this period, as extended in recent reigns, had grown ever more widely and included ‘any action of plan directed against the king or his government’ (J G Bellamy, The Law of Treason in England in the Later Middle Ages, p.98). Protectors in the past had been given quasi-regal powers to command obedience from all men, and incitement to a murderous attack on a previous Protector had been regarded as treasonous (A J Carson, Richard Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector and High Constable of England, p. 72). If the attack took place as described in Mancini, it was both attempted murder and an assault on the legally constituted government of the realm. Both were capital charges.

The Court of the High Constable. Unknown to Mancini, and disregarded by other commentators, Richard of Gloucester had held the appointment of High Constable of England for nearly 14 years. He carried ultimate responsibility for the conduct of martial affairs and military discipline and presided over his own Constable’s Court whose jurisdiction encompassed the prosecution of treason. It could be called into being on an ad hoc basis, with a jury empanelled from whichever suitably qualified persons were available. It passed judgement ‘summarily and plainly, without noise and customary form of trial, on simple inspection of the truth of the deed’ and ‘without leave of appeal’ (see Carson, pp. 33-4). The Constable’s Court was empowered to determine whether Hastings had committed a capital offence (as Hastings well knew, having similar powers himself at Calais). Very few records of the Constable’s Court exist, but when convened at the Tower it would have had no shortage of witnesses and jury-members available; they included the Duke of Buckingham, probably Baron Stanley, and also ‘lords and knights such as Sir Robert Harrington, Sir Charles Pilkington and Sir Thomas Howard, able to form a tribunal’ (A F Sutton, The Admiralty and Constableship of England in the Later Fifteenth Century, p.205). Hastings was never attainted, which again points to the Constable’s Court which could distrain only goods and persons. Richard had him laid to rest near Edward IV at the royal chapel at Windsor, and was generous to his widow and family.