I really enjoyed listening to this podcast. Nathen makes such a calm balanced viewpoint, explaining about the pressures of making a TV show, and explaining exactly why this "New Evidence" is neither new nor evidence.
I am a staunch Ricardian,and have absolute respect for the amazing Philippa Langley and her discoveries.
One could equally well state the following (all points 1 to 4 are documented facts):
1. James Tyrell was completely trusted by Richard, and was given the task of bringing Richard's mother-in-law from sanctuary in Beaulieu to Middleham Castle ( a journey of 296 miles) after the Battle of Tewkesbury.
2. James Tyrell was entrusted with £3,000 to take to Flanders during Richard's brief reign. Archive documents state as purposed for a matter "greatly to the King's weel". This could have been money for the upkeep of the Princes and to finance taking them abroad for safety.
3. James Tyrell stayed abroad in Guisnes Castle (Calais) both before and after Bosworth until treacherously winkled out by Henry VII who promised a pardon and safety which was revoked immediately he was on board ship.
4. This happened very soon after the death of Prince Arthur when Henry VII's reign was at its weakest point ever, two male heirs now having died, only Henry (later Henry VIII) was left, then a child of nine. Henry VII was desperate to find out whether the Princes really had been taken to Flanders and protected by James Tyrell. James Tyrell is said to have made a completely undocumented confession that he murdered the Princes, and was tried and executed shortly after landing in England.
5. It might be said that Sir James confessed to a murder he did not commit (a) because he knew he was going to be killed anyway and (b) to stop anyone going looking for the Princes henceforth, and to stop any Pretenders coming forward. So that they could live abroad in peace.
All the above are true facts except the last, Paragraph 5, which is my supposition. If following the pattern of citing loosely linked documentary evidence and relationships as set out in the TV show, one would now be stating that points 1 to 4 are evidence that James Tyrell rescued the Princes from the Tower (as in fact Philippa's latest research suggests), took them to Flanders and protected them until he was himself executed. None is actual evidence, but it is at least as strong a circumstantial case as in the TV show.
John de Vere was a stubborn Lancastrian who had been imprisoned in the Hams garrison under the orders of Edward IV since 1475. On October 29, 1484, Richard III heard of a conspiracy to rescue him and ordered Oxford to return. However, James Blount and John Fortescue, the porter from Calais, defected to Henry Tudor and took Oxford with them. In December, Lord Darnham, the Governor of Calais, attacked and occupied Hams, imprisoning several people, including Brent's wife. In January 1485, Oxford and others returned to Hams to rescue them. In the ceasefire agreement, the Calais army allowed dissatisfied individuals to leave. They joined the ranks of Henry Tudor.
Harleian MSS 433 also records a sum of £3,000, calculated to be the equivalent of the annual royal budget, was paid out to Sir James at Calais upon assuming his post as commander of Guisnes in January 1485Towards the end of 1484,
Henry VII never announced the whereabouts of the prince, and in January 1485, shortly after the rebellion of the Calais army, Richard's money is more likely to be related to them.
I think you should just write a book, Nathen. I am absolutely obsessed with them but sometimes it gets to much, simply because its been so much in the news again at the moment. The majority of people on social media really haven't got a clue but they do have some passionate and interesting if contentious views. This latest documentary tbh was naff. There were good moments, but the reveal was not a reveal, it was known to other scholars, it wasn't discovered by Professor Tim Thornton. The will it talked about of Margaret Capell has been known and studied since 1826 so it isn't a new discovery. Having said that it is exciting because it mentioned a chain belonging to Edward v. My moan is this and it is a moan, is that there was no context, the mention in the response by Dr Tracy Borman to this alleged chain. It came across in the documentary as if it was a definite link between the chain of Edward V and James Tyrell. It suggested that it must have been taken from the murdered Edward V but there is a difficulty there.
For one thing we don't know if it belonged to Edward V.
There are many questions I would ask like who gave it to them, how did the family get it and when. I agree with Nathen, William Capell was a money lender and this could be colorectal for a loan. I could just imagine the scandal in 1522 if this really was the chain, rather golden collar of Edward V and would see this as a family story not a real piece of evidence in the mystery of the Missing Princes.
There are too many questions in most of the theories and that can be applied to any historian involved in this ongoing mystery. It isn't proof of murder but its interesting as it talks about a chain which may belong to Edward V. I have read several things to do with Professional Thornton so knew a few days beforehand what the new evidence was but didn't expect it to be seen as proper evidence in the documentary. I don't agree, I think it's interesting but its not proof and really we have to ask many more questions.
Nobody has solved the mystery. I lean more towards Team Survived, the evidence from Philippa Langley is compelling, but I would ask lots of questions about those documents as well. Her book contains far more information. Always interrogate the evidence, always ask questions. I don't believe Richard killed the boys but am open to the possibility. There are several theories on the Missing Princes, many books, many documentary programmes, some naff, others very good. There are several academic studies on Thomas More open access online and Professor Thornton is doing new research. We need an accessible but academic written study on his work.
There were good bits on the documentary. Nathen spoke on the pre contract and tired to keep it balanced and Matt Lewis spoke on the life of Edward V at Ludlow. The filming in St Paul's and Westminster was amazing and some of the context came across at times. However, William Shakespeare was quoted a lot as if he was an official and contemporary source which we know he isn't. There is a very good book Richard iii and Shakespeare which I recommend. It is a few years old but contextual.
The bit with Prof Turi King was excellent as she explained Richard's injuries and the human story at the centre of this should always be returned to. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that 2 young boys went missing, presumed dead sometime between July and October 1483. We don't know what happened to them and maybe we never will. It's OK to believe something, to write what you believe, but we should try to remain open about other theories. That's your duty as a historian to remain balanced. It all adds to the debate. For me it's case unproven and two young boys whose fate remains a mystery.
Richard was the High Constable of England and Lord Protector which gave him the right to try people for treason and it's actually a crime against the state. Richard was the state, ruling on behalf of King and Council and so treason was against him and the state.
Mancini records that Hastings was immediately taken out for execution after being convicted of treason, leaving only time for prayer. The anonymous sequel record states' no trial '. Both sources believe that Richard executed innocent Hastings for his ambition without evidence or trial. Mancini recorded that during the official announcement after his execution, many people knew that Richard had fabricated this conspiracy (they may not be true, but they are more credible than hundreds of years later)
Mancini wasn't an eye witness either and didn't speak much English. It is doubtful he understood the role of Richard as High Constable of England. It is a source which is at least contemporary and straightforward without the elaborate nonsense of More. I know what it says, thank you very much, I have read it several times. You obviously don't understand the role of High Constable. Also other sources tell us that Buckingham presented evidence to the Council. Hastings wasn't innocent, he was conspiring with others, that's also made clear. Richard had powers to hear evidence, to question Hastings which he did and to pass sentence. The fact that he had arms in the Council chamber is also noted in Crowland and there is a newsletter in the Cely papers telling us that beforehand there was a disturbance and unease. In other words there was an atmosphere of tension. Historian Matt Lewis believes that Richard acted under his power as High Constable and at the Council convened a Court Marshall. It wasn't the same as a trial as we would know, it was using Oyer and Terminer, to hear and determine. You didn't need a full trial under the law of arms, you only needed to see the evidence, which Richard already had seen. You also only have to take a traitor who is armed, hear if they are guilty or innocent and make a determination. It was perfectly legal. We don't know the full order of things because much of the evidence is missing. Evidence was shown to the Concil by Buckingham after Hastings was taken out. I think he was actually then grabbed by the overly excited mob and executed. He probably should have been questioned again.
A summary execution was perfectly valid whether we like it or not. Richard knew the law and he always stuck to it. He may have acted too quickly here but in an emergency he could. Others were arrested but not executed, some because they were clergy and others because they were guilty in a lesser criminal sense. There is also dispute as to whether Lord Stanley was actually at the Council meeting. He is noted as being injured but only one source puts him there. Others don't. If he was, he was arrested for a short period and released before the coronation. We know he was conspiring with Hastings before the Council meeting. Richard had all of the conspirators together in the Tower Council meeting, while everyone else was at the main one elsewhere. Read the articles on this on Annette Carson website and her book on the roles of Lord Protector and High Constable. You can get it on Kindle. You can't understand what happened without understanding Richard's powers as High Constable. He rarely used them in haste, he was always measured in his use of his powers which tells you this was seriously dangerous. Unlike John Tiptoft who used the powers without blinking, a man I admire very much, Richard used restraint. It was not Richard who acted incorrectly here, it was Hastings and the others. Richard took decisive action to avoid disorder and to preserve his own life and keep the peace.
There is another theory here. Peter Hancock and his book Richard iii and the Murder in the Tower looks at all of the evidence, sources outside of the Council meeting that explain the background and the motivation of each person. He calls it Murder in the Tower as that's how many people view the execution because they don't understand the law. He doesn't think Richard was wrong but maybe hasty and he has interesting theories. His theory is that Richard had found out that Hastings held information regarding the legitimacy of Edward iv and Elizabeth Wydville's marriage and had hidden that knowledge. Potentially that made him guilty of concealing something dangerous which put Richard in danger. It's always assumed it was Bishop of Bath and Wells who raised the contract issue but Hancock suggested it was William Catesby who gave Richard the information and told him Hastings was also in the know and intended to hide the truth. Of course we can't be certain of the contract with Eleanor Talbot or if Richard made it up, but we know it was presented to the Council and experts and determined it was true. It remains debatable today. Hastings was not an honourable person in my opinion. Even though he had probably informed Richard of his brother's death, he had later acted against him. He had acted for his own reasons. Stanley was acting for who could reward him the most and actually it was Richard who had restored the peace. Hastings was causing trouble at the very least and had been conspiring with one lot or the other in a treasonable manner. Richard cut of the head of the snake.
I still want to remind you that it is very strange to conclude that Hastings really has a conspiracy because we do not know the development of the event. Even if Buckingham did provide 'evidence', it cannot prove Hastings' guilt. This may have been fabricated by them long ago. Mancini recorded that Richard III announced that Hastings was carrying weapons with the intention of killing him. We also have follow-up reports to prove this, but it does not mean that Hastings really carried a weapon. Mancini also believes that Hastings and others are innocent, and that Crowland did not record any weapons.
You must have noticed that the proof you provided is only a delay in modern works, but the claim that Richard did not go to trial and killed the "innocent" Hastings is clearly supported by two main sources (Mancini and the Crowland Continuation may not be 100% reliable, but they are more reliable than other sources). If we cannot believe that Hastings was innocently killed, how can we believe that Buckingham provided evidence? These two sources are more credible than other sources (yes, no one knows the truth: 1. Mancini and (the continuation of Crowland) explicitly state that Hastings is innocent and has not been tried (this may not be true, but it is an important consideration and the main reason why most historians believe that Hastings is innocent). 2. There are also other sources indicating that the evidence provided by Buckingham may not necessarily be false, but without the aforementioned two records, it is still more trustworthy. 3. Hastings had connections with France, which was the result of Edward IV's ideas. Richard once refused the French king and accepted gifts, believing that Hastings had connections with France and therefore had the most false idea. This led to Edward IV and Richard III being equally guilty. Mancini recorded that Hastings met with other friends of Edward IV, but this does not prove any conspiracy (as Mancini is clearly convinced that they are completely innocent and Hastings is likely trying to appease them on behalf of Richard III). 4. The records of the Tudor dynasty show that Hastings decided to rebel for Edward V, on the premise that Richard III had already decided to usurp the throne, and Virgil also recorded that Hastings had no intention of doing anything in parliament. This may not be false, but it is still less reliable than the two records in the first chapter. Most people still believe that Hastings is innocent, which is why
I am well aware of the variation in the sources, thank you very much. The fact that "most people believe Hastings was innocent" proves absolutely nothing. As I stated before, with so much information missing and the opinions of people who probably were not even there, contradictory, we can't know for certain what Richard believed about Hastings. I agree, a full treason trial msy well have told us that but it would have most likely resulted in a guilty verdict as well.
Accusing Richard of manufacturing evidence is ridiculous. Where is your evidence for that? Of course the records written later, which are opinion, not actually evidence show that Hastings intended to support Edward V, which makes him even more guilty and suggests that Richard had uncovered that information and therefore took the correct steps in arresting Hastings and others and striking first for his own protection and that of the realm.
In the meanwhile, the lord Hastings, who seemed to wish in every way to serve the two dukes and to be desirous of earning their favour, was extremely elated at these changes to which the affairs of the world are so subject, and was in the habit of saying that hitherto nothing whatever had been done except the transferring of the government of the kingdom from two of the queen’s blood to two more powerful persons of the king’s; and this, too, effected without any slaughter, or indeed causing as much blood to be shed as would be produced by the cut of a finger. In the course, however, of a very few days after the utterance of these words, this extreme of joy of his supplanted with sorrow. For, the day previously, the Protector had, with singular adroitness, divided the council, so that one part met in the morning at Westminster, and the other at the Tower of London, where the king was. The lord Hastings, on the thirteenth day of the month of June, being the sixth day of the week, on coming to the Tower to join the council, was, by order of the Protector, beheaded. Two distinguished prelates, also, Thomas, archbishop of York, and John, bishop of Ely, being out of respect for their order, held exempt from capital punishment, were carried prisoners to different castles in Wales. The three strongest supporters of the new king being thus removed without judgment or justice, and all the rest of his faithful subjects fearing the like treatment, the two dukes did thenceforth just as they pleased.Crowland Chronicle‘Then he set his thoughts on removing, or at least undermining, everything that might stand in the way of him mastering the throne’
‘…he considered that his prospects were not sufficiently secure, without the removal or imprisonment of those who had been the closest friends of his brother, and were expected to be loyal to his brother’s offspring. In this class he thought to include Hastings the king’s Chamberlain; Thomas Rotherham…and the Bishop of Ely’
‘…for he had sounded their loyalty through the duke of Buckingham, and learned that they sometimes foregathered in each other’s houses.’
‘thus fell Hastings, killed not by those enemies he had always feared, but by a friend whom he had never doubted’After this execution had been done in the citadel, the townsmen, who had heard the uproar but were uncertain of the cause, became panic-stricken, and each one seized his weapons. But, to calm the multitude, the duke instantly sent a herald to proclaim that a plot had been detected in the citadel, and Hastings, the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty. . . . At first the ignorant crowed believed, although the real truth was on the lips of many, namely that the plot had been feigned by the duke so as to escape the odium of such a crime. Mancini
It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights. However, it was at this time rumoured that this address had been got up in the north, whence such vast numbers were flocking to London; although, at the same time, there was not a person but what very well knew who was the sole mover at London of such seditious and disgraceful proceedings.For while the councillors of the king, now deceased, were present with the queen at Westminster, and were naming a certain day, on which the eldest son of king Edward (who at this time was in Wales), should repair to London for the ceremonial of his coronation, there were various contentions among some of them, what number of men should be deemed a sufficient escort for a prince of such tender years, to accompany him upon his journey. Some were for limiting a greater, some a smaller number, while others again, leaving to the inclination of him who was above all laws, would have it to consist of whatever number his faithful subjects should think fit to summon. Still, the ground of these differences was the same in each case; it being the most ardent desire of all who were present, that this prince should succeed his father in all his glory. The more prudent members of the council, however, were of opinion that guardianship of so youthful a person, until he should reach the years of maturity, ought to be utterly forbidden to his uncles and brothers on his mother’s side. This, however, they were of opinion, could not so easily be brought about, if it should be allowed those of the queen’s relatives who held the chief places about the prince, to bring him up for he solemnization of the coronation, without an escort of a moderate number of those. The advice…of the lord Hastings, the Captain of Calais, at last prevailed; who declared that he himself would fly thither with all speed, rather than await the arrival of the new king, if he did not come attended by a moderate escort. For he was afraid lest, if the supreme power should fall into the hands of the queen’s relations, they would exact a most signal vengeance for the injuries which had been formerly inflicted on them by that same lord; in consequence of which, there had long existed extreme ill-will between the said lord Hastings and them. The queen most beneficiently tried to extinguish every spark of murmuring and disturbance, and wrote to her son, requesting him, on his road to London, not to exceed an escort of two thousand men. The same number was also approved for the before-named lord; as it would appear, he felt fully assured that the dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham, in whom he placed the greatest confidence, would not bring a smaller number with them.I think you haven't read the records of the sequel to Crowland and Mancini at all. It's unbelievable to take them out of context!
Thank you for citing the sources which just confirm everything I already said, they give an opinion and it places the blame for the whole problem on Elizabeth Wydeville. For your information I am well acquainted with the sources and I don't need you to bully me over them. It also helps if you put the quotation in quotation marks as your comments are difficult to distinguish from the sources. Hastings was the sensible one here. That doesn't mean he didn't move against Richard afterwards.
On the Monday following, they came with a great multitude by water to Westminster, armed with swords and staves, and compelled the cardinal lord archbishop of Canterbury, with many others, to enter the sanctuary, in order to appeal to the good feelings of the queen and prompt her to allow her son Richard, duke of York, to come forth and proceed to the Tower, that he might comfort the king his brother. In words, assenting with many thanks to this proposal, she accordingly sent the boy, who was conducted by the lord cardinal to the king in the said Tower of London.
The Crowland Chronicles and 1483
Dominic Mancini says, “When the Queen saw herself besieged and preparation for violence, she surrendered her son, trusting in the word of the Archbishop of Canterbury that the boy should be restored after the coronation.”
Richard's promise was that on March 1, 1484, Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters finally emerged from the shelter in Westminster, where they had been living since April 30 of last year. The chronicler of Crowland said that Elizabeth was "urged by frequent prayers and terrible threats," and there was no sign that she received any assurance that Edward IV's sons were still alive, as sometimes argued. On the contrary, without them, her position seemed very fragile, coupled with the deaths of her executed brother Earl Rivers and her son Sir Richard Grey, as well as the absence of another son, Thomas the Marquess of Dorset, and two other brothers Lionel and Edward Woodville.
As for Richard, he guarantees that Elizabeth's five daughters will "ensure their safety and will not allow any man or men to harm their bodies or anything on their bodies, nor will they go against their will". He added that he would not put them in the Tower of London prison or any other prison. It's hard to interpret all of this as a promise from a man who has already caused immense harm to his family not to do anything again. The mention of the last place where Elizabeth's sons were seen alive is particularly inspiring. Kings usually do not have to promise that individual subjects will not suffer in their hands. Usually, as evidenced by the guarantors Richard extracted from the pardoned rebels, the opposite is true
I don't see any threat in the nobles, religious and an escort going to escort Richard a royal Prince to his brother. Elizabeth didn't have to hand him over and Richard wasn't forced to make her any promises. He made the promise to reassure her. Elizabeth was sent several letters by Richard in May 1483 asking her to come out of sanctuary and to take up her place. She refused and instead indulged in a conspiracy. Elizabeth Wydville was a manipulative shrew who was lucky that her and Margaret Beaufort were not executed for treason.
Richard, Duke of York went down river in full daylight and with much rejoicing. Elizabeth was naturally concerned. She had heard many rumours. She wasn't in the best frame of mind I suggest.
the lords consulted their own safety, warned by the example of Hastings, and perceiving that the alliance of the two dukes, whose power, supported by a multitude of troops, would be difficult and hazardous to resis tMancini
’.From this day, these dukes acted no longer in secret, but openly manifested their intentions. For, having summoned armed men, in fearful and unheard-of numbers, from the north, Wales, and all other parts then subject to them, the said Protector Richard assumed the government of the kingdom, with the title of King, on the twentieth day of the aforesaid month of June; on the same day, at the great Hall of Westminster, obtruded himself into the marble chair. The colour for this act of usurpation, and his thus taking possession of the throne was the following: — It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of .These multitudes of people, accordingly, making a descent from the north to the south, under the especial conduct and guidance of Sir Richard Ratcliffe; on their arrival at the town of Pontefract, by command of the said Richard Ratcliffe, and without any form of trial being observed, Antony, earl of Rivers, Richard Grey, his nephew, and Thomas Vaughan, an aged knight, were, in presence of these people, beheaded. This was the second innocent blood which was shed on the occasion of this sudden change.
A great number of lords and commoners in England were summoned to Westminster. Mancini says that they “supposed they were called both to hear the reason for Hastings’ execution and to decide again upon the coronation of Edward.” Mancini says that Richard secretly dispathed Buckingham to the lords with orders to submit their decision regarding the disposal of the throne. Buckingham brought with him a petition, says the Croyland Chronicler. The petition is lost, but was included in the “Titilus Regius” passed in 1484. The army Richard had summoned from the North arrives and camps outside the gates of London. Dominic Mancini says there were 6,000 men. Richard decides to use them as auxiliary police at his coronation because “he was afraid lest any uproar should be fomented against him at his coronation. He himself went out to meet the soldiers before they entered the City.” The Great Chronicler states that “there was hasty provision made for his coronation.”
The news of Edward IV's death on April 9, 1483 was made public within a few hours - the body of the late king was exhibited in Westminster for the mayor of London and major citizens to view, and the news was transmitted to Calais on April 10 through Hastings' servants - Richard's relationship with the court and London, not to mention his relatives and acquaintances, could have been communicated with Richard about his brother's death, thus preventing any attempt to conceal information from him. However, the most likely scenario is that Richard does not need to rely on these sources; On the contrary, the most logical conclusion is that William Hastings, as a late royal attendant, sent an official messenger to notify Richard of his brother's death, just as he sent a messenger to Calais. Later, when there was opposition in parliament, Hastings sent private communications to Richard - the ones mentioned by Mancini, but there was no reason to believe that these confidential communications were the first messages Richard received about his brother - we are not sure if it was Hastings who told Richard about Edward's death
The first of several myths about the Woodville family and the death of Edward IV appeared at this time: the Woodville family concealed the story of Edward IV's death in Gloucester. This myth originated from Paul Murray Kendall's magnificent biography of Richard III, which tells us that Gloucester did not receive formal notice of the king's death until Lord William Hastings himself broke the news and told Gloucester that he had appointed a protector. In fact, neither Mancini nor the main source of this period, Crowland, pointed out any abnormality or unusual delay in the way Gloucester was informed of the king's death. In fact, neither of them said that Gloucester was a protector. When or how was he first informed of his brother's death: Crowland remained silent on this issue, except to point out that Gloucester had sent a "pleasant letter" to the widowed queen, while Mancini only reported that Hastings had informed Gloucester of the committee's deliberations. Although Polydor Vergil wrote in the 16th century that it was Hastings who notified Gloucester of the death of Edward IV, he did not point out anything wrong with the way Gloucester was informed. In fact, if anyone complains about the delay, it is the new King Edward V, who did not receive the message until April 14th - four days later than Calais' message Susan Higginbotham - The Woodvilles: The Wars of the Roses and England’s Most Infamous Family. In fact, in the chronology of events in "The Coronation of Richard III: Existing Documents," Anne F. Sutton and P. W. Hammond estimated based on Mancini, Crowland, and other contemporary sources that Richard of Yorkshire may have received news of Edward IV's death around the same time (April 14), and that Edward V and his family, including Elizabeth's brother Anthony Woodville, received the news in Wales.
Furthermore, even if Woodville wanted to conceal the king's death from Richard (similarly, there is no contemporary evidence to suggest that this was their wish), it would be difficult for them to accomplish such a feat. Although Richard spent most of his time in the north, far from the court of Edward IV, he was an important part of Edward IV's government and held immense power. He will have agents in the court to trade with the king and keep him informed of current events there; He will also have lawyers in London to handle his legal affairs. The news of Edward IV's death on April 9, 1483 was made public within hours - the body of the late king was exhibited in Westminster for the mayor and major citizens of London to view, and the news was announced in April
This reminds me of the research on Langley and Lewis Lambert playing Edward V... In that era, there were many records of errors and conflicts, and Anne Neville's name was once recorded as Elizabeth... They ignored the news that Edward V was still alive and had seized the throne, which had never been circulated in Europe. For many years, Maximilian and Margaret never accused Henry VII of killing Edward V. Most of Lambert's supporters were supporters of Richard III and Clarence (I say most, but there is no evidence to suggest that Thomas Gray wanted to participate in the rebellion, and Henry arrested him probably because he was Warwick's guardian. In 1484, Thomas wanted to leave Henry and return to England), and they refuted this traditional history with some rare and trivial records... This is quite strange... The Tudor dynasty never had the ability to destroy all unfavorable evidence... Britain is not a vacuum society. The conspiracy theory that Henry VII modified history and made the world ignore Lambert Bay's announcement as Edward V is impossible
For one thing most of what's written here is nonsense. Edward V had seized the throne? What are you talking about? BTW the lost princes research wasn't the work of Matt Lewis and Philippa Langley, it was headed and co coordinated by her and carried out by a research team of over 300 people. You need to do your homework, luv. The whole point of the research is that part of it revealed the possibility that Edward and Richard were still alive and in Europe.
Thomas Grey's part in the whole issue isn't clear, I will return to that later.
The Tudor Dynasty was no different than any other in destroying inconvenient documents. For example it did destroy the documents of the Dublin Parliament 1487 because it regarded it as an illegitimate Parliament. Henry's orders are recorded. Ask Nathen Amin if you don't believe me.
The Regis was ordered gathered in and destroyed. Only 2 copies survived. The original in the Parliament Rolls and a copy found in Crowland Abbey.
No, I don't believe that whole scale destruction of documents happened but we know what's missing nonetheless.
The Council minutes of Richard iii are missing, evidence mentioned in other documents is missing but existed. There are a few things which shouldn't be missing but are. I don't have an exhaustive list. It's never possible to destroy anything and FOR one thing I don't believe Henry killed them but he had even bigger motivation than Richard, he had made them legitimate.
I know Mancini has recorded many errors (for example, there is no law in England that requires the execution of a king's will, we are not sure if Edward IV's will is true, Elizabeth Woodville did not allow her foreign relatives to rule the country, there is no contemporary record of Cecily Neville declaring that Edward IV was not the child of the Duke of York, and there is no contemporary record of Clarence declaring that because Elizabeth Woodville was a widow and not a virgin, her marriage to the king was illegal, and she was not a legitimate queen...)
And your point is? Nobody ever said anything about Cecily Neville reporting that Edward wasn't her husband's child. That was invented by Mancini who was reporting gossip. Richard's letter to his mother proves he wasn't on poor relations with her and that there was no split with her. Had Richard impugned his mother, which he didn't, a split would have been obvious. Mancini is reporting something he had heard from his informers regarding words Cecily is allegedly supposed to have remarked several years earlier. There isn't any evidence for those remarks and he even states it is what he heard and that he can't verify it. Mancini tells us throughout his chronicle which is useful in some ways, not so in others that he heard this and that and he may not be correct. You need to read the correct translation as well.
However, Mancini and the anonymous sequel both stated that Hastings was executed without evidence or trial (Henry VIII's execution of Anne Boleyn was also legal)Henry had at least one 'trial' process, although we all know it was controlled
As explained Hastings was tried by Richard in his position as Lord High Constable of England. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the role Richard held. That goes into how this worked. Again I have explained and the sources agree with me that we don't have enough information on what happened to make a conclusion. Much of what you have cited I don't really get the point as it doesn't contradict anything I have said. Obviously you have taken the time to cite the above and there are several more points I will come back to but may I also add, I find your attacks on me intimidating and unnecessary. I have always had difficulty with the case of Lord Hastings, I am sure a lot of people do. I don't believe it was murder, it was a summary execution which was perfectly legal in certain types of treason. The most modern scholarship on this shows that he wasn't innocent. Maybe he got himself mixec up in something he didn't want to be involved in. We know that Hastings was meeting with others like Lord Stanley and he was at a separate meeting in the Tower to the main Council because Richard called all those involved in conspiracies against him were there. All those arrested, Rotherham, possibly Stanley, not all the sources agree that he was there, John Morton etc had been involved in being in contact with France. Both the late Mike Ingrim and Peter Hancock have done more research as has Annette Carson on this than anyone else and they believe Hastings was involved in a conspiracy. It probably wasn't with the Wydeville clan and Susan Higginbotham has argued this but it certainly was against Richard and the realm.
You should also note that Crowland re wrote much of his original work as did John Rous and because of so many contradictions it is difficult to know what is what in 1483. Also I don't see anything wrong in 6000 troops being in a city preparing for the coronation of a King especially as there were different factions around. Before Richard arrived there had been chaos. His coming was welcomed and he brought law and order.
（Christine Carpenter） ： If it was the North that betrayed Richard, then it was the South that made Henry the true candidate for the throne and made the Northern lords doubt Richard's ability to win. Under the rule of Edward IV, there were 40 bodily attendants; 24 were Southerners. Of these 24, 11 rebelled. Of the remaining 13, 5 lost their Peace Council and 2 rebelled in 1484.
Mancini，Crowland Neither of these sources records that Hastings was armed or that Richard and Buckingham provided evidence.Mike Ingrim and Peter Hancock were not medieval police officers. (In order to smear Hastings' morality, some even mentioned the French gift, which Edward IV accepted. Obviously, Edward was also guilty of treason!Without a trial process and evidence that future generations can study，Their speculation can only be speculation The viewpoint that both main sources of information are clear cannot be overturned. (One contemporary, one a few years later)
Neither are you. You haven't a clue why Hastings was arrested any more than anyone else. Hastings was guilty of treason according to the evidence Richard saw. We don't know what it was because it's no longer available but it wasn't challenged and there was no comeback in a city in which Hastings was popular. Hastings also had the largest private arny around. Richard wouldn't have had him executed without a good reason. It is indeed frustrating that the evidence is not available. I would love to know what it was. As I have said we have a few theories and no satisfaction in answers. Just because you are ignorant regarding the legal proceedings under the Constable of England doesn't mean it wasn't valid. It was laid down and you can get off your lazy ass and look it up. There's full research on it online and on kindle or in paperback which explains the role of the High Constable and Lord Protector and you can read it. It's perfectly explained. It's not my problem you're too damn lazy to look it up.
Any one can cut and paste 2 sources . It takes real brains and research to debate and explain them in the light of other sources and research and to interpret them. I don't see you doing either. Now if you will excuse me I have answered your questions, none of which have anything to do with the original post and you aren't my priority. I have a mum who recently passed away and am caring for a husband with cancer. Some of your statements make no sense whatsoever. The point of view of other authorities is as valid as yours. How can Edward iv be a traitor? Have you even read anything on the definition of treason? I doubt it.
Thanks to the kindness of Richard III, the number of nobles who stripped away their power was similar to that of Henry VII throughout his lifetime (which proves the instability of his rule)
Rosemary Horrox (in Richard III: A Study in Service) and Lillian Gill (in Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion) studied the numerous southern rebellions during Richard III's reign. Almost from the moment he became king until his death, he never stopped.
Richard III certainly tried his best to behave like a generous ruler to those standing beside him, but more and more people kept betraying Henry Tudor. Wherever they were, there were 400 to 500 Britons seeking Henry in Brittany - no other exiles or post conquest pretenders to the throne received so much active national support during their exile, let alone the support he received in Wales. The garrison of Fort Calais also completely defected to Henry's side, which made Richard III particularly worried because Calais is a city that can be easily accessed from France and serves as a springboard to England. Those who were pardoned in early 1484, such as William Brandon and William Berkeley, constantly rebelled, and even Richard III's own family began to abandon him, such as his wardrobe keeper Piers Curteis, who fled to a shelter in Westminster in 1485.Under the rule of Edward IV, there were 40 body attendants; 24 people are from the south. Among these 24 people, 11 rebelled. Among the remaining 13 people, 5 lost their peace committee, and 2 rebelled in 1484.
Under the rule of Edward IV, there were 24 body knights; 10 people are from the south. Six out of ten people rose in 1483.
50% of Edward IV's Southern knights and attendants (17 out of 34 courtiers) led the uprising.
From 1478 to 1482, 48% of the people who served as sheriffs in 14 counties under Edward IV rebelled in 1483; 35% of security commissioners rebelled.
40% of southern judges and sheriffs rebelled.
35% of the security commissioners selected by Richard rebelled. This proportion has risen to 61%, including those who stepped down directly after the uprising.
Out of the 10 magistrates elected in November 1482, 4 rebelled.
Richard had to replace 40% of the main officers in the South. He became increasingly suspicious of southerners, so he replaced them with northerners or people he could trust who were loyal to him.
People rebelled against the fact that Richard was clamping down on corruption and his changes from southern local gentry to northern ers were necessary. Obviously he couldn't keep those in their jobs who were likely to rebel. I would imagine that didn't help the situation.
Christine Carpenter wrote that Henry thus became "not a claimant of the Lancaster family, but the second best alternative of the York family to the deceased son of Edward IV"Richard appointed Buckingham (so far his trusted assistant) to investigate and try treason and felony charges in London, Surrey, Sussex, Kent, Middlesex, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Essex, and Hertfordshire. In early October, a rebellion broke out in Kent, followed by Exeter, Guilford, London, Newbury, Salisbury, Wiltshire, Cornwall and other places. Richard's trusted assistant, the Duke of Buckingham, also launched a failed rebellion in Wales. However, it is equally important to note that the cities visited by Richard during his entry into northern England were well received. Richard not only demonstrated military prowess, but also provided many subsidies to the old members of the Edward IV family and retained their positions so that they could remain loyal. Despite his proposal for reconciliation, a reviewer for the Crooland Chronicle commented that after his coronation, people began to "complain loudly", "especially those who were scattered among various franchises and shelters due to fear". Mancini recorded that 'there are already suspicions that [Edward V] has been executed'. Less than a month after his coronation, a rebellion broke out in London, with people setting fire to the entire city, hoping that the Tower of London garrison could rush to extinguish the fire and save the princes.
The sources for this are later and unreliable. It's not clear that this actually happened or was suppressed before it happened. Richard gave orders for arrests to be made and order restored but it's unclear if the Tower was attacked or not.
Treason is a crime against the state. Richard as Lord Protector and High Constable of England represented the state or the realm. How do you think Charles I was accused of treason?
A very rational statement, I don't believe Langley's explanation, but I support your idea (and, I have seen your comments elsewhere, I want to explain that Hastings was executed without trial or evidence in the records of Mancini and the sequel, and Richard had the power to judge privately, but according to the two records, he didn't. The records are not as reliable, but more reliable than later speculations)
As High Constable of England Richard had the right to try Hastings and had held that right since 1469. It's not entirely clear what Hastings had done but at least one record shows him in conspiracy with others days prior to 13th and he was also in contact with the French. The late Mike Ingram in his book Richard iii and the Battle of Bosworth proposed his connections with France, his being in receipt of a French pension all led to his execution. He also came to the chamber armed.
If Richard did indeed hear evidence under his role as Constable then there was no appeal against his decision. He did have the power to order a summary execution. We are told evidence was made public. Others were arrested and later released. Everyone of them received a pension from France. I would suggest something more went on with Hastings. Unfortunately we just don't have enough information to know for certain. The records aren't sufficient. The Council Minutes tell us nothing because they are missing. The evidence is missing, there are very few details in the only reliable sober description. There, of course is Thomas More in which Hastings is accused of conspiracy with Queen Elizabeth and Jane Shore and has put a spell on Richard. It's here that he bares his arm and it's withered and then accusations of witchcraft and treason are put onto Hastings. This account is elaborated and we know that because Richard didn't have a withered arm. Nor does a suggestion that he had reactive arthritis explain it. Your arm doesn't wither from that. I know, I had it and it's a brief condition, very different from rhemortoid or ordinary arthritis. These are painful permanent conditions. I suffer from both. More is taking the basic details and adding some colour. Elizabeth was accused of witchcraft but in a very different setting, an Act of Parliament. Jane Shore was accused of a variety of things because she acted as a go between for Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Wydville. Hastings was supposed to have been her lover along with Edward iv. At least one source also connected her to Anthony Woodville.
The Hastings affair is something of a mess, lack of reliable information being the main problem.
Rosemary Horrocks also pointed out that Moore was the first person to romantically link Jane and Edward in her ODNB article. However, at the time of Edward IV's death, Moore was only a 4-5 year old child, and he wrote his own works 30 years later, which makes his works clearly not contemporary. Jane Shore/Elizabeth Lambert once went to prison, but we are not sure why she went there. She has a more verifiable connection with Hastings. More connections also linked her to Hastings, with the London Chronicle stating that she was called upon to take responsibility for some of Hastings' goods and claiming that she was asked to perform a walk of repentance for "the life she led with the alleged Lord Hastings and Lord Othell Gretel Astartes". As for Thomas Gray, it depends on how much you are prepared to believe Richard III's words. He accused Gray of "having an affair with an unshakable and mischievous woman named Shaw's wife" and committing many other crimes, including rape. We should probably be very, very cautious about Richard's statement because Gray was resisting him at the time. Linking Elizabeth to him, if she already had a shameful reputation, would make their reputations even darker. There are no contemporary sources linking her to Edward IV
We can only find her name in Simon's letter, Richard's letter to her husband, and the accusations against Thomas Gray There is no contemporary public telling us why Jane Shore/former Elizabeth Lambert was imprisoned (she was imprisoned around Hastings' death, of course not because of Margaret Beaufort)
There is no contemporary evidence to suggest that Jane Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) was accused of acting as an intermediary between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville (we only know that Richard III declared her to be Thomas Gray's mistress). Tudor era reports state that she was punished for Hastings (we don't even know if Elizabeth Lambert was Edward IV's mistress, which is Thomas Moore's first recorded case and he had never been before!!!)
I am always cautious when it comes to Thomas More. That's the problem with many of these sources they are later. Yet people think his account of the alleged murder of the Princes is absolutely true. What a joke.
I really enjoyed listening to this podcast. Nathen makes such a calm balanced viewpoint, explaining about the pressures of making a TV show, and explaining exactly why this "New Evidence" is neither new nor evidence.
I am a staunch Ricardian,and have absolute respect for the amazing Philippa Langley and her discoveries.
One could equally well state the following (all points 1 to 4 are documented facts):
1. James Tyrell was completely trusted by Richard, and was given the task of bringing Richard's mother-in-law from sanctuary in Beaulieu to Middleham Castle ( a journey of 296 miles) after the Battle of Tewkesbury.
2. James Tyrell was entrusted with £3,000 to take to Flanders during Richard's brief reign. Archive documents state as purposed for a matter "greatly to the King's weel". This could have been money for the upkeep of the Princes and to finance taking them abroad for safety.
3. James Tyrell stayed abroad in Guisnes Castle (Calais) both before and after Bosworth until treacherously winkled out by Henry VII who promised a pardon and safety which was revoked immediately he was on board ship.
4. This happened very soon after the death of Prince Arthur when Henry VII's reign was at its weakest point ever, two male heirs now having died, only Henry (later Henry VIII) was left, then a child of nine. Henry VII was desperate to find out whether the Princes really had been taken to Flanders and protected by James Tyrell. James Tyrell is said to have made a completely undocumented confession that he murdered the Princes, and was tried and executed shortly after landing in England.
5. It might be said that Sir James confessed to a murder he did not commit (a) because he knew he was going to be killed anyway and (b) to stop anyone going looking for the Princes henceforth, and to stop any Pretenders coming forward. So that they could live abroad in peace.
All the above are true facts except the last, Paragraph 5, which is my supposition. If following the pattern of citing loosely linked documentary evidence and relationships as set out in the TV show, one would now be stating that points 1 to 4 are evidence that James Tyrell rescued the Princes from the Tower (as in fact Philippa's latest research suggests), took them to Flanders and protected them until he was himself executed. None is actual evidence, but it is at least as strong a circumstantial case as in the TV show.
and cite them as "evidence" .
Thank you for listening
John de Vere was a stubborn Lancastrian who had been imprisoned in the Hams garrison under the orders of Edward IV since 1475. On October 29, 1484, Richard III heard of a conspiracy to rescue him and ordered Oxford to return. However, James Blount and John Fortescue, the porter from Calais, defected to Henry Tudor and took Oxford with them. In December, Lord Darnham, the Governor of Calais, attacked and occupied Hams, imprisoning several people, including Brent's wife. In January 1485, Oxford and others returned to Hams to rescue them. In the ceasefire agreement, the Calais army allowed dissatisfied individuals to leave. They joined the ranks of Henry Tudor.
Harleian MSS 433 also records a sum of £3,000, calculated to be the equivalent of the annual royal budget, was paid out to Sir James at Calais upon assuming his post as commander of Guisnes in January 1485Towards the end of 1484,
Indeed.
The fourth paragraph is obviously your guess (please indicate)
Before Henry deceived James, he betrayed Henry and helped Edmund escape
Henry VII never announced the whereabouts of the prince, and in January 1485, shortly after the rebellion of the Calais army, Richard's money is more likely to be related to them.
I think you should just write a book, Nathen. I am absolutely obsessed with them but sometimes it gets to much, simply because its been so much in the news again at the moment. The majority of people on social media really haven't got a clue but they do have some passionate and interesting if contentious views. This latest documentary tbh was naff. There were good moments, but the reveal was not a reveal, it was known to other scholars, it wasn't discovered by Professor Tim Thornton. The will it talked about of Margaret Capell has been known and studied since 1826 so it isn't a new discovery. Having said that it is exciting because it mentioned a chain belonging to Edward v. My moan is this and it is a moan, is that there was no context, the mention in the response by Dr Tracy Borman to this alleged chain. It came across in the documentary as if it was a definite link between the chain of Edward V and James Tyrell. It suggested that it must have been taken from the murdered Edward V but there is a difficulty there.
For one thing we don't know if it belonged to Edward V.
There are many questions I would ask like who gave it to them, how did the family get it and when. I agree with Nathen, William Capell was a money lender and this could be colorectal for a loan. I could just imagine the scandal in 1522 if this really was the chain, rather golden collar of Edward V and would see this as a family story not a real piece of evidence in the mystery of the Missing Princes.
There are too many questions in most of the theories and that can be applied to any historian involved in this ongoing mystery. It isn't proof of murder but its interesting as it talks about a chain which may belong to Edward V. I have read several things to do with Professional Thornton so knew a few days beforehand what the new evidence was but didn't expect it to be seen as proper evidence in the documentary. I don't agree, I think it's interesting but its not proof and really we have to ask many more questions.
Nobody has solved the mystery. I lean more towards Team Survived, the evidence from Philippa Langley is compelling, but I would ask lots of questions about those documents as well. Her book contains far more information. Always interrogate the evidence, always ask questions. I don't believe Richard killed the boys but am open to the possibility. There are several theories on the Missing Princes, many books, many documentary programmes, some naff, others very good. There are several academic studies on Thomas More open access online and Professor Thornton is doing new research. We need an accessible but academic written study on his work.
There were good bits on the documentary. Nathen spoke on the pre contract and tired to keep it balanced and Matt Lewis spoke on the life of Edward V at Ludlow. The filming in St Paul's and Westminster was amazing and some of the context came across at times. However, William Shakespeare was quoted a lot as if he was an official and contemporary source which we know he isn't. There is a very good book Richard iii and Shakespeare which I recommend. It is a few years old but contextual.
The bit with Prof Turi King was excellent as she explained Richard's injuries and the human story at the centre of this should always be returned to. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that 2 young boys went missing, presumed dead sometime between July and October 1483. We don't know what happened to them and maybe we never will. It's OK to believe something, to write what you believe, but we should try to remain open about other theories. That's your duty as a historian to remain balanced. It all adds to the debate. For me it's case unproven and two young boys whose fate remains a mystery.
In addition, treason is a crime against the monarch, and Richard was clearly not the king at that time
Richard was the High Constable of England and Lord Protector which gave him the right to try people for treason and it's actually a crime against the state. Richard was the state, ruling on behalf of King and Council and so treason was against him and the state.
Mancini records that Hastings was immediately taken out for execution after being convicted of treason, leaving only time for prayer. The anonymous sequel record states' no trial '. Both sources believe that Richard executed innocent Hastings for his ambition without evidence or trial. Mancini recorded that during the official announcement after his execution, many people knew that Richard had fabricated this conspiracy (they may not be true, but they are more credible than hundreds of years later)
Mancini wasn't an eye witness either and didn't speak much English. It is doubtful he understood the role of Richard as High Constable of England. It is a source which is at least contemporary and straightforward without the elaborate nonsense of More. I know what it says, thank you very much, I have read it several times. You obviously don't understand the role of High Constable. Also other sources tell us that Buckingham presented evidence to the Council. Hastings wasn't innocent, he was conspiring with others, that's also made clear. Richard had powers to hear evidence, to question Hastings which he did and to pass sentence. The fact that he had arms in the Council chamber is also noted in Crowland and there is a newsletter in the Cely papers telling us that beforehand there was a disturbance and unease. In other words there was an atmosphere of tension. Historian Matt Lewis believes that Richard acted under his power as High Constable and at the Council convened a Court Marshall. It wasn't the same as a trial as we would know, it was using Oyer and Terminer, to hear and determine. You didn't need a full trial under the law of arms, you only needed to see the evidence, which Richard already had seen. You also only have to take a traitor who is armed, hear if they are guilty or innocent and make a determination. It was perfectly legal. We don't know the full order of things because much of the evidence is missing. Evidence was shown to the Concil by Buckingham after Hastings was taken out. I think he was actually then grabbed by the overly excited mob and executed. He probably should have been questioned again.
A summary execution was perfectly valid whether we like it or not. Richard knew the law and he always stuck to it. He may have acted too quickly here but in an emergency he could. Others were arrested but not executed, some because they were clergy and others because they were guilty in a lesser criminal sense. There is also dispute as to whether Lord Stanley was actually at the Council meeting. He is noted as being injured but only one source puts him there. Others don't. If he was, he was arrested for a short period and released before the coronation. We know he was conspiring with Hastings before the Council meeting. Richard had all of the conspirators together in the Tower Council meeting, while everyone else was at the main one elsewhere. Read the articles on this on Annette Carson website and her book on the roles of Lord Protector and High Constable. You can get it on Kindle. You can't understand what happened without understanding Richard's powers as High Constable. He rarely used them in haste, he was always measured in his use of his powers which tells you this was seriously dangerous. Unlike John Tiptoft who used the powers without blinking, a man I admire very much, Richard used restraint. It was not Richard who acted incorrectly here, it was Hastings and the others. Richard took decisive action to avoid disorder and to preserve his own life and keep the peace.
There is another theory here. Peter Hancock and his book Richard iii and the Murder in the Tower looks at all of the evidence, sources outside of the Council meeting that explain the background and the motivation of each person. He calls it Murder in the Tower as that's how many people view the execution because they don't understand the law. He doesn't think Richard was wrong but maybe hasty and he has interesting theories. His theory is that Richard had found out that Hastings held information regarding the legitimacy of Edward iv and Elizabeth Wydville's marriage and had hidden that knowledge. Potentially that made him guilty of concealing something dangerous which put Richard in danger. It's always assumed it was Bishop of Bath and Wells who raised the contract issue but Hancock suggested it was William Catesby who gave Richard the information and told him Hastings was also in the know and intended to hide the truth. Of course we can't be certain of the contract with Eleanor Talbot or if Richard made it up, but we know it was presented to the Council and experts and determined it was true. It remains debatable today. Hastings was not an honourable person in my opinion. Even though he had probably informed Richard of his brother's death, he had later acted against him. He had acted for his own reasons. Stanley was acting for who could reward him the most and actually it was Richard who had restored the peace. Hastings was causing trouble at the very least and had been conspiring with one lot or the other in a treasonable manner. Richard cut of the head of the snake.
I still want to remind you that it is very strange to conclude that Hastings really has a conspiracy because we do not know the development of the event. Even if Buckingham did provide 'evidence', it cannot prove Hastings' guilt. This may have been fabricated by them long ago. Mancini recorded that Richard III announced that Hastings was carrying weapons with the intention of killing him. We also have follow-up reports to prove this, but it does not mean that Hastings really carried a weapon. Mancini also believes that Hastings and others are innocent, and that Crowland did not record any weapons.
You must have noticed that the proof you provided is only a delay in modern works, but the claim that Richard did not go to trial and killed the "innocent" Hastings is clearly supported by two main sources (Mancini and the Crowland Continuation may not be 100% reliable, but they are more reliable than other sources). If we cannot believe that Hastings was innocently killed, how can we believe that Buckingham provided evidence? These two sources are more credible than other sources (yes, no one knows the truth: 1. Mancini and (the continuation of Crowland) explicitly state that Hastings is innocent and has not been tried (this may not be true, but it is an important consideration and the main reason why most historians believe that Hastings is innocent). 2. There are also other sources indicating that the evidence provided by Buckingham may not necessarily be false, but without the aforementioned two records, it is still more trustworthy. 3. Hastings had connections with France, which was the result of Edward IV's ideas. Richard once refused the French king and accepted gifts, believing that Hastings had connections with France and therefore had the most false idea. This led to Edward IV and Richard III being equally guilty. Mancini recorded that Hastings met with other friends of Edward IV, but this does not prove any conspiracy (as Mancini is clearly convinced that they are completely innocent and Hastings is likely trying to appease them on behalf of Richard III). 4. The records of the Tudor dynasty show that Hastings decided to rebel for Edward V, on the premise that Richard III had already decided to usurp the throne, and Virgil also recorded that Hastings had no intention of doing anything in parliament. This may not be false, but it is still less reliable than the two records in the first chapter. Most people still believe that Hastings is innocent, which is why
I am well aware of the variation in the sources, thank you very much. The fact that "most people believe Hastings was innocent" proves absolutely nothing. As I stated before, with so much information missing and the opinions of people who probably were not even there, contradictory, we can't know for certain what Richard believed about Hastings. I agree, a full treason trial msy well have told us that but it would have most likely resulted in a guilty verdict as well.
Accusing Richard of manufacturing evidence is ridiculous. Where is your evidence for that? Of course the records written later, which are opinion, not actually evidence show that Hastings intended to support Edward V, which makes him even more guilty and suggests that Richard had uncovered that information and therefore took the correct steps in arresting Hastings and others and striking first for his own protection and that of the realm.
In the meanwhile, the lord Hastings, who seemed to wish in every way to serve the two dukes and to be desirous of earning their favour, was extremely elated at these changes to which the affairs of the world are so subject, and was in the habit of saying that hitherto nothing whatever had been done except the transferring of the government of the kingdom from two of the queen’s blood to two more powerful persons of the king’s; and this, too, effected without any slaughter, or indeed causing as much blood to be shed as would be produced by the cut of a finger. In the course, however, of a very few days after the utterance of these words, this extreme of joy of his supplanted with sorrow. For, the day previously, the Protector had, with singular adroitness, divided the council, so that one part met in the morning at Westminster, and the other at the Tower of London, where the king was. The lord Hastings, on the thirteenth day of the month of June, being the sixth day of the week, on coming to the Tower to join the council, was, by order of the Protector, beheaded. Two distinguished prelates, also, Thomas, archbishop of York, and John, bishop of Ely, being out of respect for their order, held exempt from capital punishment, were carried prisoners to different castles in Wales. The three strongest supporters of the new king being thus removed without judgment or justice, and all the rest of his faithful subjects fearing the like treatment, the two dukes did thenceforth just as they pleased.Crowland Chronicle‘Then he set his thoughts on removing, or at least undermining, everything that might stand in the way of him mastering the throne’
‘…he considered that his prospects were not sufficiently secure, without the removal or imprisonment of those who had been the closest friends of his brother, and were expected to be loyal to his brother’s offspring. In this class he thought to include Hastings the king’s Chamberlain; Thomas Rotherham…and the Bishop of Ely’
‘…for he had sounded their loyalty through the duke of Buckingham, and learned that they sometimes foregathered in each other’s houses.’
‘thus fell Hastings, killed not by those enemies he had always feared, but by a friend whom he had never doubted’After this execution had been done in the citadel, the townsmen, who had heard the uproar but were uncertain of the cause, became panic-stricken, and each one seized his weapons. But, to calm the multitude, the duke instantly sent a herald to proclaim that a plot had been detected in the citadel, and Hastings, the originator of the plot, had paid the penalty. . . . At first the ignorant crowed believed, although the real truth was on the lips of many, namely that the plot had been feigned by the duke so as to escape the odium of such a crime. Mancini
It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights. However, it was at this time rumoured that this address had been got up in the north, whence such vast numbers were flocking to London; although, at the same time, there was not a person but what very well knew who was the sole mover at London of such seditious and disgraceful proceedings.For while the councillors of the king, now deceased, were present with the queen at Westminster, and were naming a certain day, on which the eldest son of king Edward (who at this time was in Wales), should repair to London for the ceremonial of his coronation, there were various contentions among some of them, what number of men should be deemed a sufficient escort for a prince of such tender years, to accompany him upon his journey. Some were for limiting a greater, some a smaller number, while others again, leaving to the inclination of him who was above all laws, would have it to consist of whatever number his faithful subjects should think fit to summon. Still, the ground of these differences was the same in each case; it being the most ardent desire of all who were present, that this prince should succeed his father in all his glory. The more prudent members of the council, however, were of opinion that guardianship of so youthful a person, until he should reach the years of maturity, ought to be utterly forbidden to his uncles and brothers on his mother’s side. This, however, they were of opinion, could not so easily be brought about, if it should be allowed those of the queen’s relatives who held the chief places about the prince, to bring him up for he solemnization of the coronation, without an escort of a moderate number of those. The advice…of the lord Hastings, the Captain of Calais, at last prevailed; who declared that he himself would fly thither with all speed, rather than await the arrival of the new king, if he did not come attended by a moderate escort. For he was afraid lest, if the supreme power should fall into the hands of the queen’s relations, they would exact a most signal vengeance for the injuries which had been formerly inflicted on them by that same lord; in consequence of which, there had long existed extreme ill-will between the said lord Hastings and them. The queen most beneficiently tried to extinguish every spark of murmuring and disturbance, and wrote to her son, requesting him, on his road to London, not to exceed an escort of two thousand men. The same number was also approved for the before-named lord; as it would appear, he felt fully assured that the dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham, in whom he placed the greatest confidence, would not bring a smaller number with them.I think you haven't read the records of the sequel to Crowland and Mancini at all. It's unbelievable to take them out of context!
Thank you for citing the sources which just confirm everything I already said, they give an opinion and it places the blame for the whole problem on Elizabeth Wydeville. For your information I am well acquainted with the sources and I don't need you to bully me over them. It also helps if you put the quotation in quotation marks as your comments are difficult to distinguish from the sources. Hastings was the sensible one here. That doesn't mean he didn't move against Richard afterwards.
On the Monday following, they came with a great multitude by water to Westminster, armed with swords and staves, and compelled the cardinal lord archbishop of Canterbury, with many others, to enter the sanctuary, in order to appeal to the good feelings of the queen and prompt her to allow her son Richard, duke of York, to come forth and proceed to the Tower, that he might comfort the king his brother. In words, assenting with many thanks to this proposal, she accordingly sent the boy, who was conducted by the lord cardinal to the king in the said Tower of London.
The Crowland Chronicles and 1483
Dominic Mancini says, “When the Queen saw herself besieged and preparation for violence, she surrendered her son, trusting in the word of the Archbishop of Canterbury that the boy should be restored after the coronation.”
Richard's promise was that on March 1, 1484, Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters finally emerged from the shelter in Westminster, where they had been living since April 30 of last year. The chronicler of Crowland said that Elizabeth was "urged by frequent prayers and terrible threats," and there was no sign that she received any assurance that Edward IV's sons were still alive, as sometimes argued. On the contrary, without them, her position seemed very fragile, coupled with the deaths of her executed brother Earl Rivers and her son Sir Richard Grey, as well as the absence of another son, Thomas the Marquess of Dorset, and two other brothers Lionel and Edward Woodville.
As for Richard, he guarantees that Elizabeth's five daughters will "ensure their safety and will not allow any man or men to harm their bodies or anything on their bodies, nor will they go against their will". He added that he would not put them in the Tower of London prison or any other prison. It's hard to interpret all of this as a promise from a man who has already caused immense harm to his family not to do anything again. The mention of the last place where Elizabeth's sons were seen alive is particularly inspiring. Kings usually do not have to promise that individual subjects will not suffer in their hands. Usually, as evidenced by the guarantors Richard extracted from the pardoned rebels, the opposite is true
I don't see any threat in the nobles, religious and an escort going to escort Richard a royal Prince to his brother. Elizabeth didn't have to hand him over and Richard wasn't forced to make her any promises. He made the promise to reassure her. Elizabeth was sent several letters by Richard in May 1483 asking her to come out of sanctuary and to take up her place. She refused and instead indulged in a conspiracy. Elizabeth Wydville was a manipulative shrew who was lucky that her and Margaret Beaufort were not executed for treason.
Richard, Duke of York went down river in full daylight and with much rejoicing. Elizabeth was naturally concerned. She had heard many rumours. She wasn't in the best frame of mind I suggest.
the lords consulted their own safety, warned by the example of Hastings, and perceiving that the alliance of the two dukes, whose power, supported by a multitude of troops, would be difficult and hazardous to resis tMancini
’.From this day, these dukes acted no longer in secret, but openly manifested their intentions. For, having summoned armed men, in fearful and unheard-of numbers, from the north, Wales, and all other parts then subject to them, the said Protector Richard assumed the government of the kingdom, with the title of King, on the twentieth day of the aforesaid month of June; on the same day, at the great Hall of Westminster, obtruded himself into the marble chair. The colour for this act of usurpation, and his thus taking possession of the throne was the following: — It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of .These multitudes of people, accordingly, making a descent from the north to the south, under the especial conduct and guidance of Sir Richard Ratcliffe; on their arrival at the town of Pontefract, by command of the said Richard Ratcliffe, and without any form of trial being observed, Antony, earl of Rivers, Richard Grey, his nephew, and Thomas Vaughan, an aged knight, were, in presence of these people, beheaded. This was the second innocent blood which was shed on the occasion of this sudden change.
Crowland Continuation
A great number of lords and commoners in England were summoned to Westminster. Mancini says that they “supposed they were called both to hear the reason for Hastings’ execution and to decide again upon the coronation of Edward.” Mancini says that Richard secretly dispathed Buckingham to the lords with orders to submit their decision regarding the disposal of the throne. Buckingham brought with him a petition, says the Croyland Chronicler. The petition is lost, but was included in the “Titilus Regius” passed in 1484. The army Richard had summoned from the North arrives and camps outside the gates of London. Dominic Mancini says there were 6,000 men. Richard decides to use them as auxiliary police at his coronation because “he was afraid lest any uproar should be fomented against him at his coronation. He himself went out to meet the soldiers before they entered the City.” The Great Chronicler states that “there was hasty provision made for his coronation.”
The news of Edward IV's death on April 9, 1483 was made public within a few hours - the body of the late king was exhibited in Westminster for the mayor of London and major citizens to view, and the news was transmitted to Calais on April 10 through Hastings' servants - Richard's relationship with the court and London, not to mention his relatives and acquaintances, could have been communicated with Richard about his brother's death, thus preventing any attempt to conceal information from him. However, the most likely scenario is that Richard does not need to rely on these sources; On the contrary, the most logical conclusion is that William Hastings, as a late royal attendant, sent an official messenger to notify Richard of his brother's death, just as he sent a messenger to Calais. Later, when there was opposition in parliament, Hastings sent private communications to Richard - the ones mentioned by Mancini, but there was no reason to believe that these confidential communications were the first messages Richard received about his brother - we are not sure if it was Hastings who told Richard about Edward's death
The first of several myths about the Woodville family and the death of Edward IV appeared at this time: the Woodville family concealed the story of Edward IV's death in Gloucester. This myth originated from Paul Murray Kendall's magnificent biography of Richard III, which tells us that Gloucester did not receive formal notice of the king's death until Lord William Hastings himself broke the news and told Gloucester that he had appointed a protector. In fact, neither Mancini nor the main source of this period, Crowland, pointed out any abnormality or unusual delay in the way Gloucester was informed of the king's death. In fact, neither of them said that Gloucester was a protector. When or how was he first informed of his brother's death: Crowland remained silent on this issue, except to point out that Gloucester had sent a "pleasant letter" to the widowed queen, while Mancini only reported that Hastings had informed Gloucester of the committee's deliberations. Although Polydor Vergil wrote in the 16th century that it was Hastings who notified Gloucester of the death of Edward IV, he did not point out anything wrong with the way Gloucester was informed. In fact, if anyone complains about the delay, it is the new King Edward V, who did not receive the message until April 14th - four days later than Calais' message Susan Higginbotham - The Woodvilles: The Wars of the Roses and England’s Most Infamous Family. In fact, in the chronology of events in "The Coronation of Richard III: Existing Documents," Anne F. Sutton and P. W. Hammond estimated based on Mancini, Crowland, and other contemporary sources that Richard of Yorkshire may have received news of Edward IV's death around the same time (April 14), and that Edward V and his family, including Elizabeth's brother Anthony Woodville, received the news in Wales.
Furthermore, even if Woodville wanted to conceal the king's death from Richard (similarly, there is no contemporary evidence to suggest that this was their wish), it would be difficult for them to accomplish such a feat. Although Richard spent most of his time in the north, far from the court of Edward IV, he was an important part of Edward IV's government and held immense power. He will have agents in the court to trade with the king and keep him informed of current events there; He will also have lawyers in London to handle his legal affairs. The news of Edward IV's death on April 9, 1483 was made public within hours - the body of the late king was exhibited in Westminster for the mayor and major citizens of London to view, and the news was announced in April
This reminds me of the research on Langley and Lewis Lambert playing Edward V... In that era, there were many records of errors and conflicts, and Anne Neville's name was once recorded as Elizabeth... They ignored the news that Edward V was still alive and had seized the throne, which had never been circulated in Europe. For many years, Maximilian and Margaret never accused Henry VII of killing Edward V. Most of Lambert's supporters were supporters of Richard III and Clarence (I say most, but there is no evidence to suggest that Thomas Gray wanted to participate in the rebellion, and Henry arrested him probably because he was Warwick's guardian. In 1484, Thomas wanted to leave Henry and return to England), and they refuted this traditional history with some rare and trivial records... This is quite strange... The Tudor dynasty never had the ability to destroy all unfavorable evidence... Britain is not a vacuum society. The conspiracy theory that Henry VII modified history and made the world ignore Lambert Bay's announcement as Edward V is impossible
For one thing most of what's written here is nonsense. Edward V had seized the throne? What are you talking about? BTW the lost princes research wasn't the work of Matt Lewis and Philippa Langley, it was headed and co coordinated by her and carried out by a research team of over 300 people. You need to do your homework, luv. The whole point of the research is that part of it revealed the possibility that Edward and Richard were still alive and in Europe.
Thomas Grey's part in the whole issue isn't clear, I will return to that later.
The Tudor Dynasty was no different than any other in destroying inconvenient documents. For example it did destroy the documents of the Dublin Parliament 1487 because it regarded it as an illegitimate Parliament. Henry's orders are recorded. Ask Nathen Amin if you don't believe me.
The Regis was ordered gathered in and destroyed. Only 2 copies survived. The original in the Parliament Rolls and a copy found in Crowland Abbey.
No, I don't believe that whole scale destruction of documents happened but we know what's missing nonetheless.
The Council minutes of Richard iii are missing, evidence mentioned in other documents is missing but existed. There are a few things which shouldn't be missing but are. I don't have an exhaustive list. It's never possible to destroy anything and FOR one thing I don't believe Henry killed them but he had even bigger motivation than Richard, he had made them legitimate.
I know Mancini has recorded many errors (for example, there is no law in England that requires the execution of a king's will, we are not sure if Edward IV's will is true, Elizabeth Woodville did not allow her foreign relatives to rule the country, there is no contemporary record of Cecily Neville declaring that Edward IV was not the child of the Duke of York, and there is no contemporary record of Clarence declaring that because Elizabeth Woodville was a widow and not a virgin, her marriage to the king was illegal, and she was not a legitimate queen...)
And your point is? Nobody ever said anything about Cecily Neville reporting that Edward wasn't her husband's child. That was invented by Mancini who was reporting gossip. Richard's letter to his mother proves he wasn't on poor relations with her and that there was no split with her. Had Richard impugned his mother, which he didn't, a split would have been obvious. Mancini is reporting something he had heard from his informers regarding words Cecily is allegedly supposed to have remarked several years earlier. There isn't any evidence for those remarks and he even states it is what he heard and that he can't verify it. Mancini tells us throughout his chronicle which is useful in some ways, not so in others that he heard this and that and he may not be correct. You need to read the correct translation as well.
However, Mancini and the anonymous sequel both stated that Hastings was executed without evidence or trial (Henry VIII's execution of Anne Boleyn was also legal)Henry had at least one 'trial' process, although we all know it was controlled
As explained Hastings was tried by Richard in his position as Lord High Constable of England. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the role Richard held. That goes into how this worked. Again I have explained and the sources agree with me that we don't have enough information on what happened to make a conclusion. Much of what you have cited I don't really get the point as it doesn't contradict anything I have said. Obviously you have taken the time to cite the above and there are several more points I will come back to but may I also add, I find your attacks on me intimidating and unnecessary. I have always had difficulty with the case of Lord Hastings, I am sure a lot of people do. I don't believe it was murder, it was a summary execution which was perfectly legal in certain types of treason. The most modern scholarship on this shows that he wasn't innocent. Maybe he got himself mixec up in something he didn't want to be involved in. We know that Hastings was meeting with others like Lord Stanley and he was at a separate meeting in the Tower to the main Council because Richard called all those involved in conspiracies against him were there. All those arrested, Rotherham, possibly Stanley, not all the sources agree that he was there, John Morton etc had been involved in being in contact with France. Both the late Mike Ingrim and Peter Hancock have done more research as has Annette Carson on this than anyone else and they believe Hastings was involved in a conspiracy. It probably wasn't with the Wydeville clan and Susan Higginbotham has argued this but it certainly was against Richard and the realm.
You should also note that Crowland re wrote much of his original work as did John Rous and because of so many contradictions it is difficult to know what is what in 1483. Also I don't see anything wrong in 6000 troops being in a city preparing for the coronation of a King especially as there were different factions around. Before Richard arrived there had been chaos. His coming was welcomed and he brought law and order.
（Christine Carpenter） ： If it was the North that betrayed Richard, then it was the South that made Henry the true candidate for the throne and made the Northern lords doubt Richard's ability to win. Under the rule of Edward IV, there were 40 bodily attendants; 24 were Southerners. Of these 24, 11 rebelled. Of the remaining 13, 5 lost their Peace Council and 2 rebelled in 1484.
What has this got got do with anything?
Mancini，Crowland Neither of these sources records that Hastings was armed or that Richard and Buckingham provided evidence.Mike Ingrim and Peter Hancock were not medieval police officers. (In order to smear Hastings' morality, some even mentioned the French gift, which Edward IV accepted. Obviously, Edward was also guilty of treason!Without a trial process and evidence that future generations can study，Their speculation can only be speculation The viewpoint that both main sources of information are clear cannot be overturned. (One contemporary, one a few years later)
Neither are you. You haven't a clue why Hastings was arrested any more than anyone else. Hastings was guilty of treason according to the evidence Richard saw. We don't know what it was because it's no longer available but it wasn't challenged and there was no comeback in a city in which Hastings was popular. Hastings also had the largest private arny around. Richard wouldn't have had him executed without a good reason. It is indeed frustrating that the evidence is not available. I would love to know what it was. As I have said we have a few theories and no satisfaction in answers. Just because you are ignorant regarding the legal proceedings under the Constable of England doesn't mean it wasn't valid. It was laid down and you can get off your lazy ass and look it up. There's full research on it online and on kindle or in paperback which explains the role of the High Constable and Lord Protector and you can read it. It's perfectly explained. It's not my problem you're too damn lazy to look it up.
Any one can cut and paste 2 sources . It takes real brains and research to debate and explain them in the light of other sources and research and to interpret them. I don't see you doing either. Now if you will excuse me I have answered your questions, none of which have anything to do with the original post and you aren't my priority. I have a mum who recently passed away and am caring for a husband with cancer. Some of your statements make no sense whatsoever. The point of view of other authorities is as valid as yours. How can Edward iv be a traitor? Have you even read anything on the definition of treason? I doubt it.
Thanks to the kindness of Richard III, the number of nobles who stripped away their power was similar to that of Henry VII throughout his lifetime (which proves the instability of his rule)
Rosemary Horrox (in Richard III: A Study in Service) and Lillian Gill (in Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion) studied the numerous southern rebellions during Richard III's reign. Almost from the moment he became king until his death, he never stopped.
Richard III certainly tried his best to behave like a generous ruler to those standing beside him, but more and more people kept betraying Henry Tudor. Wherever they were, there were 400 to 500 Britons seeking Henry in Brittany - no other exiles or post conquest pretenders to the throne received so much active national support during their exile, let alone the support he received in Wales. The garrison of Fort Calais also completely defected to Henry's side, which made Richard III particularly worried because Calais is a city that can be easily accessed from France and serves as a springboard to England. Those who were pardoned in early 1484, such as William Brandon and William Berkeley, constantly rebelled, and even Richard III's own family began to abandon him, such as his wardrobe keeper Piers Curteis, who fled to a shelter in Westminster in 1485.Under the rule of Edward IV, there were 40 body attendants; 24 people are from the south. Among these 24 people, 11 rebelled. Among the remaining 13 people, 5 lost their peace committee, and 2 rebelled in 1484.
Under the rule of Edward IV, there were 24 body knights; 10 people are from the south. Six out of ten people rose in 1483.
50% of Edward IV's Southern knights and attendants (17 out of 34 courtiers) led the uprising.
From 1478 to 1482, 48% of the people who served as sheriffs in 14 counties under Edward IV rebelled in 1483; 35% of security commissioners rebelled.
40% of southern judges and sheriffs rebelled.
35% of the security commissioners selected by Richard rebelled. This proportion has risen to 61%, including those who stepped down directly after the uprising.
Out of the 10 magistrates elected in November 1482, 4 rebelled.
Richard had to replace 40% of the main officers in the South. He became increasingly suspicious of southerners, so he replaced them with northerners or people he could trust who were loyal to him.
People rebelled against the fact that Richard was clamping down on corruption and his changes from southern local gentry to northern ers were necessary. Obviously he couldn't keep those in their jobs who were likely to rebel. I would imagine that didn't help the situation.
Christine Carpenter wrote that Henry thus became "not a claimant of the Lancaster family, but the second best alternative of the York family to the deceased son of Edward IV"Richard appointed Buckingham (so far his trusted assistant) to investigate and try treason and felony charges in London, Surrey, Sussex, Kent, Middlesex, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Essex, and Hertfordshire. In early October, a rebellion broke out in Kent, followed by Exeter, Guilford, London, Newbury, Salisbury, Wiltshire, Cornwall and other places. Richard's trusted assistant, the Duke of Buckingham, also launched a failed rebellion in Wales. However, it is equally important to note that the cities visited by Richard during his entry into northern England were well received. Richard not only demonstrated military prowess, but also provided many subsidies to the old members of the Edward IV family and retained their positions so that they could remain loyal. Despite his proposal for reconciliation, a reviewer for the Crooland Chronicle commented that after his coronation, people began to "complain loudly", "especially those who were scattered among various franchises and shelters due to fear". Mancini recorded that 'there are already suspicions that [Edward V] has been executed'. Less than a month after his coronation, a rebellion broke out in London, with people setting fire to the entire city, hoping that the Tower of London garrison could rush to extinguish the fire and save the princes.
The sources for this are later and unreliable. It's not clear that this actually happened or was suppressed before it happened. Richard gave orders for arrests to be made and order restored but it's unclear if the Tower was attacked or not.
Treason is a crime against the state. Richard as Lord Protector and High Constable of England represented the state or the realm. How do you think Charles I was accused of treason?
A very rational statement, I don't believe Langley's explanation, but I support your idea (and, I have seen your comments elsewhere, I want to explain that Hastings was executed without trial or evidence in the records of Mancini and the sequel, and Richard had the power to judge privately, but according to the two records, he didn't. The records are not as reliable, but more reliable than later speculations)
As High Constable of England Richard had the right to try Hastings and had held that right since 1469. It's not entirely clear what Hastings had done but at least one record shows him in conspiracy with others days prior to 13th and he was also in contact with the French. The late Mike Ingram in his book Richard iii and the Battle of Bosworth proposed his connections with France, his being in receipt of a French pension all led to his execution. He also came to the chamber armed.
If Richard did indeed hear evidence under his role as Constable then there was no appeal against his decision. He did have the power to order a summary execution. We are told evidence was made public. Others were arrested and later released. Everyone of them received a pension from France. I would suggest something more went on with Hastings. Unfortunately we just don't have enough information to know for certain. The records aren't sufficient. The Council Minutes tell us nothing because they are missing. The evidence is missing, there are very few details in the only reliable sober description. There, of course is Thomas More in which Hastings is accused of conspiracy with Queen Elizabeth and Jane Shore and has put a spell on Richard. It's here that he bares his arm and it's withered and then accusations of witchcraft and treason are put onto Hastings. This account is elaborated and we know that because Richard didn't have a withered arm. Nor does a suggestion that he had reactive arthritis explain it. Your arm doesn't wither from that. I know, I had it and it's a brief condition, very different from rhemortoid or ordinary arthritis. These are painful permanent conditions. I suffer from both. More is taking the basic details and adding some colour. Elizabeth was accused of witchcraft but in a very different setting, an Act of Parliament. Jane Shore was accused of a variety of things because she acted as a go between for Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Wydville. Hastings was supposed to have been her lover along with Edward iv. At least one source also connected her to Anthony Woodville.
The Hastings affair is something of a mess, lack of reliable information being the main problem.
Rosemary Horrocks also pointed out that Moore was the first person to romantically link Jane and Edward in her ODNB article. However, at the time of Edward IV's death, Moore was only a 4-5 year old child, and he wrote his own works 30 years later, which makes his works clearly not contemporary. Jane Shore/Elizabeth Lambert once went to prison, but we are not sure why she went there. She has a more verifiable connection with Hastings. More connections also linked her to Hastings, with the London Chronicle stating that she was called upon to take responsibility for some of Hastings' goods and claiming that she was asked to perform a walk of repentance for "the life she led with the alleged Lord Hastings and Lord Othell Gretel Astartes". As for Thomas Gray, it depends on how much you are prepared to believe Richard III's words. He accused Gray of "having an affair with an unshakable and mischievous woman named Shaw's wife" and committing many other crimes, including rape. We should probably be very, very cautious about Richard's statement because Gray was resisting him at the time. Linking Elizabeth to him, if she already had a shameful reputation, would make their reputations even darker. There are no contemporary sources linking her to Edward IV
We can only find her name in Simon's letter, Richard's letter to her husband, and the accusations against Thomas Gray There is no contemporary public telling us why Jane Shore/former Elizabeth Lambert was imprisoned (she was imprisoned around Hastings' death, of course not because of Margaret Beaufort)
There is no contemporary evidence to suggest that Jane Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) was accused of acting as an intermediary between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville (we only know that Richard III declared her to be Thomas Gray's mistress). Tudor era reports state that she was punished for Hastings (we don't even know if Elizabeth Lambert was Edward IV's mistress, which is Thomas Moore's first recorded case and he had never been before!!!)
I am always cautious when it comes to Thomas More. That's the problem with many of these sources they are later. Yet people think his account of the alleged murder of the Princes is absolutely true. What a joke.