Richard III and the Murder in the Tower Read Online Free PDF Page A

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. 52
     
    The Archbishop of York, Thomas Rotherham, was placed under the guardianship of James Tyrell and committed to the Tower. The Bishop of Ely, John Morton 53 (later cardinal and Henry VII’s Lord Chancellor), was put in the custody of the Duke of Buckingham. Most Ricardians would, I think agree that Richard would have done rather better to have confined Hastings and executed Morton 54 rather than the other way around. The suggestion of contemporary commentators is that the latter two were saved by their status as clergymen and this is an issue to which we shall return later. In addition to these individuals, Lord Stanley, along with Oliver King 55 was also detained, and John Forster imprisoned. Again, these actions pertain to the central contention of the present work and will be discussed in further detail. Jane Shore, who presumably was not present at the events happening in the Tower that day, was rather harshly treated by Richard. Her possessions were confiscated, she was imprisoned and subsequently forced to do public penance two days later. The reason why Richard enforced this action is also a key question in any explanation of the events of that day. One key piece of information has been reported which appears to render support for the notion of the premeditation of the acts of this fateful morning. Apparently, some few hours after the execution of Hastings, a proclamation was sent out through heralds across the city to scotch rumours and gossip among the general public. It was said that this proclamation was so long and detailed and so readily available after the event that it must have been drawn up before. If true, this would show evidence of premeditation. But premeditation on behalf of whom? It has always naturally been assumed that Richard had this document drawn up earlier. However, I shall seek to challenge this interpretation, although not the notion of premeditation or the existence of the proclamation itself.
    Hastings was remembered fondly by several of the contemporary and near-contemporary commentators. For example, Polydore Vergil’s encomium says his ‘bountifulness and liberality, much beloved of the common people, bearing great sway among all sorts of men and persons of great reputation.’ More, never a lover of Richard and always wary with respect to Hastings himself, notes that he was ‘a good knight and a gentle … a loving man and passing well-loved. Very faithful and trusty enough, trusting too much.’ The Great Chronicle speculates on the reason for Hastings’ demise and perhaps represents the source of the most traditional interpretation that Hastings stood between Richard and the throne. The relevant text notes that, ‘And thus was this noble man murdered for his troth and fidelity which he bare until his master [Edward IV].’ Here, we must respect the opinion of Wood, whose conclusion was that the execution of Hastings, far from being part of a carefully thought-out plot on the calculated path to the throne, was rather a political mistake and evidence of completely the opposite circumstance; that this act was done virtually on the spur of the moment.
    Of course, Wood’s overall interpretation is coloured by his acceptance of Hanham’s re-dating of Hastings’ death. If the execution did occur on the 13th, and the vast preponderance of evidence confirms that it did ( see Appendix II), then the act is one of even more tactical and momentary reaction, rather than a measured, strategic response. Mancini concluded that ‘the plot