Richard III and the Murder in the Tower

by Peter A. Hancock

  Edward’s Last Days

  In his last days, Edward seems to have been anxious to mediate between these contentious parties and sought to achieve some degree of reconciliation between Hastings and prominent members of the Woodville faction, particularly Earl Rivers. In this, Edward was at best only partially successful, as subsequent events show. On the death of his friend and mentor, Hastings was left in a very precarious position. Despite the naming of his old comrade in arms, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as Protector, the early manoeuvres of the Woodvilles to cement their power began almost immediately after the king’s death. In particular, Hastings expressed special concern over the size of the escort that Edward V proposed to bring with him from Ludlow. He was quoted as objecting in a ‘passionate demand’ whether the proposed army was intended to be used ‘against the people of England, or against the good Duke of Gloucester’ (emphasis mine). A compromise was reached only after Hastings threatened to decamp to Calais, an eventuality that it seemed the Woodville faction was anxious to avoid. An alternative hypothesis concerning his motivations and actions will be presented in the final chapters of this work. For now, let us briefly evaluate the existing accounts of Hastings’ death.

  The Death of Lord Hastings

  So much depends upon the date of the execution of Lord Hastings that I have sought to make that issue a special Appendix (Appendix II), dealing with the evidence and the more recent controversy.24 However, there is much less contention over the fact itself or the manner in which the execution occurred. Here I want to look at some of the contemporary and near-contemporary accounts, so let us start with Croyland and Mancini, whose respective accounts were written around this very time.

  Most of the following accounts were as antagonistic to Richard as they were laudatory to Hastings. In particular, they praised his loyalty and fidelity to his former master, Edward IV, and his continuing allegiance to his son, Edward V. I think these observations were, at their heart, correct. For, if my hypothesis concerning the veridical nature of the pre-contract is true, then the act of preventing Richard from knowing of it was indeed one of loyalty to Edward IV and his son. Hastings, if he was actively and knowingly pursuing this course of hiding information, might well have understood it as one of continuing loyalty. However, as we shall see, what was loyalty to the father and son could certainly also be interpreted as betrayal of the brother and uncle in the person of Richard, Duke of Gloucester.

  In terms of contemporary commentators, Croyland is characteristically succinct. He noted that, ‘On 13 June, the sixth day of the week, when he came to the Council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded.’25 Mancini, by contrast, was much more discursive, but, again, as an outsider to events, he got several things wrong and for some others he provided only limited information or half-truths. Let us hear from him in his own words:

  One day these three and several others came to the Tower about ten o’clock to salute the protector, as was their custom. When they had been admitted to the innermost quarters, the protector, as prearranged, cried out that an ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms, that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers who had been stationed their by their lord, rushed in with the duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason; they arrested the others whose life, it was presumed, was spared out of respect for religion and holy orders. Thus fell Hastings, killed not by those enemies he had always feared, but by a friend whom he had never doubted.

  Here, Mancini failed to mention the Council meeting, perhaps being confused by the occurrence of the other, separate meeting that day at Westminster under John Russell. He also seems similarly vague as to the issue of time, and this suggests that he was not in the local environs when these events took place. Similarly, his comments on the actual action appear to be vague and ill-informed compared to More, whom, we presume, had details of this meeting from an eye-witness. Perhaps the most telling line of Mancini’s account is the last one. It is admittedly, just an opinion, and one most probably based largely on hearsay. But it is important again to note that, had Hastings been in fact plotting against Richard with Elizabeth Woodville, the Queen Dowager, why would he have been so surprised? Indeed, why, if Hastings had adopted this role traditionally attributed to him as a conspirator, why would Richard have been a friend that he would ‘never doubt.’ If a person is in a conspiracy against someone, he doubts them continually. Clearly here Mancini’s observations do not accord with the received account of Hastings and his supposed motivations at this time.

  The Great Chronicle of London provides an account that is a compromise between those given by More and Mancini. This account reads:

  Upon the thirteenth day of June, he [Richard] appointed a Council to be held within the Tower to which he desired to attend, the Earl of Derby, the Lord Hastings with many others but most of such as he knew would favor his cause, and upon the same day dined the said Lord Hastings with him and after dinner rode behind him or behind the Duke of Buckingham unto the Tower, where when they with the other Lords were entered [in] to the Council chamber, and the season had come in such a matter as he had before purposed. Suddenly one made an outcry at the said Council chamber door – Treason, Treason, and forthwith the usher opened the door and then pressed in such as before were appointed and straightway laid hand upon the Earl of derby and the Lord Hastings and incontinently without the process of any law or lawful examination, led the said Lord Hastings out onto the Green beside the Chapel, and there upon an end of a squared piece of timber without any long confession or other space of remembrance struck off his head. And thus was this noble man murdered for his trust and fidelity which he firmly bare unto his master, upon whose soul and all Christ Jesus have mercy, Amen.

  This account provides us with some additional detail: the usher waiting to admit the strong-arm supporters is an interesting addition, as it gives us a little more insight into the whole process. Overall, there is nothing here that contradicts Croyland, and indeed it argues greater access to those with direct knowledge of the event compared to Mancini and his account. The event itself is also described by Fabyan, who reported:

  And so daily keeping and holding the Lords in Council and feeling their minds, suddenly upon the 13th day of June, being within the Tower in the Council chamber, with diverse Lords with him, as the Duke of Buckingham, earl of derby, the Lord Hastings the Lord Chamberlain, with diverse others, an outcry by his assent of Treason was made in himself to the chamber door and there rushed in such persons as he before had appointed to execute his malicious purpose, the which incontinently set hand upon the forenamed Lord Chamberlain [Hastings] and other, in which stirring the Earl of Derby was hurt in the face and kept awhile under hold. Then by commandment of the said protector, the said Lord Chamberlain in all haste was led in the court or plain where the Chapel of the Tower stands, and there without judgment or long time of confession or repentance, upon an end of a long and great timber log, which there lay with others for the repeating of the aid Tower, caused his head to be smitten off, and for all he knew well that he would not assent to his wicked intent, whose body with the head was after carried unto Windsor and there buried by the tomb of King Edward.

  Fabyan’s account is probably derivative, but it again emphasises the main points of the sequence of events and provides us, along, with More, with the basic facts and actions which must be explained.

  The Council Chamber

  Up to the present point, I have tried to provide a summary of the various accounts of what happened at the Council meeting of 13 June. In the earlier chapter on Catesby we encountered More’s extensive account of this event and here I have also summarised accounts from other ‘contemporary’ commentators. These can be used to distill a common consensus account of how Hastings lost his head. In general, the contemporary accounts do not differ in any greatly significant way. Rather, they show similar stories with the degree of detail reflecti
ng the status of each commentator as either an eyewitness, an insider or an outsider to events. But now it is time to turn from what is recorded in written accounts to a more detailed consideration of exactly how this event happened in its geographical and spatial context. Our information here is less certain and, to a degree, we must look to constructive speculation.

  We do not have detailed plans of the Tower of London in 1483. The earliest survey that we have is that by Haiward and Gascoyne in 1597.26 However, the overwhelming likelihood is that the fateful Council meeting took place within the White Tower, which is the central Norman keep and is the most recognisable building within the Tower of London today (see front cover).

  This was one of the first structures to be built by William the Conqueror and was erected on the site of some earlier Roman fortifications. As can be seen from the front cover of this book, the White Tower is not completely symmetrical in shape and also has a clear variation in the morphology of the individual towers at each corner, although three of the corner towers are basically similar. It is an extremely solid structure, having walls some 15ft at the base and 11ft wide at its upper levels. The critical point to note here is that the original wall configuration has varied little since it was first built and must have been substantively the same in 1483.

  Even though the walls of the White Tower may have changed little, the flooring within it has most certainly been altered over the ages. It has been asserted that, in its original configuration, the White Tower had two main floors, together with the lower levels for storage and a dungeon. This number of floors has been increased to three. Fortunately, for our present purposes, these internal changes do not seem to have affected the location and configuration of what is purported to be the council chamber (see also Figures 22 and 23). This is because the council chamber is represented by authorities at the Tower as being the chamber immediately connected to the chapel of St John, which was built into the original configuration and has not changed across the intervening millennium in any meaningful manner (see curved extension of the White Tower on the front cover). The chapel itself stands on the nominal ‘upper’ floor of the White Tower in the south-east corner and is characterised by its curvilinear apse. By tradition, the council chamber was the large chamber that led off to the north of the chapel. I cannot show that this identification is true with anything like conclusive proof. However, this does appear to be the consensus identification of those who presently guard the Tower. Of course, even if this was established as an unequivocal identification of the chamber itself it does not necessarily mean that the 13 June meeting took place here. However, it is upon the basis of these two recognised assumptions that I wish to proceed.

  There are multiple entrances to this larger chamber, which itself has recessed windows on its eastern side. There is also a garderobe within the east wall of the chamber, but the account we have is of the entry of many men into the chamber and this location is neither sufficient nor convenient for this purpose. In the north-east corner of the chamber is access to the main spiral staircase of the White Tower, and this is a possible location for the invading group, but it is rather an unlikely one if Richard had time to prepare, as the missing half-hour in the Council meeting suggests that he had. A more likely candidate is the chapel of St John itself (see door at far end of Figure 22). As can be see from Figure 22, there is a doorway between the chapel and the council chamber and the chapel is certainly capable of holding many individuals. However, entry from this end might have permitted some degree of escape down the staircase at the other end of the chamber and the single narrow door inhibits the passage of several armed men at one time. What I take to be the most likely course of events would use the doorways from the adjacent large chamber (see Figure 24).27 These latter two chambers are connected by two doors, one to the north and one to the south (although only the south entrance is shown on Figure 24). In my view, it was through one or both of these doors that the armed men entered upon the given signal, with the cry of ‘Treason.’ The signal, as indicated in More, was probably some fist crashing on the table and even the usher, as the Great Chronicle tells us, appears to have been ready to facilitate entry.

  The hastily made plan worked. The people inside the chamber were taken by relative surprise, and those coming in had very little doubt as to who were the intended targets. It seems possible that the armed party entering the chamber were of Buckingham’s affiliation. Although Mancini suggests that Buckingham himself was leading them, this seems unlikely. The consensus is that Lord Stanley (the Earl of Derby) suffered some injury to the face and that a number of blows were aimed at him. One account has it that he dived under the table to avoid attack.28 The two churchmen, Rotherham and Morton, were also taken, but the blow itself fell on Hastings. The origin of the idea of a conspiracy against Edward V’s putative supporters may have come from the constitution of the group of individuals who were taken that day. Indeed, it is a reasonable inference. But if this is so, why was Hastings alone executed, while the others were imprisoned and shortly after largely excused for their actions?29 One can argue that Hastings was the ringleader, but such a conspiracy between so powerful a group of individuals (and the traditional account also implicates the queen dowager), should surely have argued for much more even-handed and stiffer punishment, certainly for the likes of Stanley, who had neither the cloth nor his sex to protect him? In contrast to Hastings’s quick execution, we find Stanley positively rising in Richard’s young administration. Two weeks after the 13th he appeared as a ‘trusted counselor’ and with Buckingham witnessed Richard’s delivery of the Great Seal to now-Chancellor John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln. At Richard’s coronation on 6 July he carried the mace before the king and queen and was soon after appointed Constable of England for life. Does this sound like the treatment of a traitor involved in a conspiracy with the now-dispatched Hastings? Surely not. Indeed, it may have been sparing Stanley on 13 June that resulted in Richard’s eventual demise. He had to have known that Stanley was the father-in-law of his only rival claimant after the princes had been barred by the pre-contract? In this sparing of Stanley, I see the hand of Catesby also. But I rather suspect that the so-called conspiracy is more in the minds of the subsequent commentators than in the minds of those present that day.

  Given the Protector’s state of mind, it would appear that Hastings was given little if any time for reconciliation or contemplation. Perhaps Hastings was taken to the chapel of St John? However, I think it is more likely he was escorted down the main stairs and out on to the green alongside St Peter ad Vincula. He may well have emerged from the north door of the White Tower adjacent to this area, which today contains a monument to Hastings and several others who lost their heads on Tower Green. The accounts virtually all agree as to immediacy and the extemporaneous nature of his actual beheading, each mentioning the use of convenient materials, especially the piece of timber designed for the repairs of the Tower. None of these observations foreshadow either long or extensive planning. Further, the treatment not only of Hastings’s bodily remains but also that of his immediate family further provide insight into Richard’s mind and his decision that day. It was the nicely written condemnation of Hastings that gave many their suspicion of prolonged planning, but I suggest that Catesby had a hand in this also.

  The Hastings Chantry, St George’s Chapel

  We may be able to gauge Richard’s subsequent response to his own precipitate action if we examine how he treated Hastings in death. Unlike the later, very shoddy treatment of his own body and his own estate by Henry Tudor, Richard treated Hastings and his family in a most generous manner. But why? Why, if the cry of ‘treason’ had been so vehement, was Hastings, now an evidently dispatched traitor, treated so well? We can see the remains of this generosity today in St George’s chapel, Windsor Castle, where the Hastings Chantry stands next to the tomb of William’s old friend and monarch, Edward IV.

  Hastings’ chantry chapel appears to have been in the process of construct
ion during his lifetime and perhaps had been planned to be located in close proximity to where Edward expected to lie. Some building accounts appear to indicate that the final completion of some of its very fine decoration, were still being made in the 1490s. These decorations show a series of fifteenth-century panels depicting the scenes of the first Christian martyr, St Stephen. As is evident from its wonderful ceiling, the chapel is designed as ‘an ornate cage of stone.’

  A Summary and a Speculation

  In the final analysis, as we look to understand Lord Hastings, we must here examine his relationship with the man who ordered his execution: Richard, Duke of Gloucester. The first thing to emphasise is that Hastings had served Richard’s family virtually all his life and was evidently devoted to Edward IV. This was a loyalty Richard and William both shared and neither broke faith with Edward at any time during his lifetime. They each shared exile with their monarch and similarly they shared his field of battle, and indeed Hastings and Richard fought alongside each other on multiple occasions and at particularly pivotal encounters. The two men must have known each other well and shared many hardships. Although they were colleagues in this sense, they were not of an age. At this time, Richard was thirty-one, while it is estimated that Hastings, at approximately fifty-three years old, was some twenty-two years his senior.