William Hastings, the Man Richardians Want to Forget

When I have spoken with Richardians about Henry VII they often point out the innocents who were executed during his reign. One name is always brought up- Edward, the 17th Earl of Warwick. Warwick was the son of George, Duke of Clarence, and grandson of Richard Neville. He had spent most of his life as a prisoner. Under Henry VII Warwick was found to be guilty of treason because he had given his support to Perkin Warbeck. The 24-year-old earl was executed on November 28, 1499. He is believed to have been a simple boy and the charges against him may have been dubious, but in the end Warwick was too risky of a prisoner and had to be executed to make Henry and his family safe on the throne and prevent the country from returning to the days of civil war.

“Richard never killed anyone innocent like that!” his fans have often exclaimed, while we all know that Henry VII did just that. Of course there is one name that will cause them to look very uncomfortable: Baron William Hastings.

The death of Hastings is a little questionable, but there are some things we do know about what happened that day. When his friend and cousin-by-marriage Edward IV died suddenly, Hastings promised to do everything in his power to assist the next king, Edward IV’s son Edward, now known as Edward V, and make sure that he was safe on the throne. With his brother now dead, Richard of Gloucester had his nephews confined to the Tower, where they were never seen again.

It is not clear where Hastings’ loyalties actually lay. While he was a loyal and true best friend to the now-deceased king, when Richard seized the throne he did so with the support of Hastings. Richard kept Hastings in his seat on the Privy Council, and most accounts of the days before the day he died show that there was no rift between the two men.

What we do know is this:

On the 13th of June, 1483 Richard called a meeting of the privy counsel to the Tower, where he was residing. Hastings came in and by some accounts the meeting went well and Hastings left with the other council members without incident. Some accounts show that as the meeting came to an end Richard turned on Hastings, accusing him and other council members of working with Elizabeth Woodville’s family through Edward IV’s former mistress (who had become Hasting’s mistress) to restore her son to the succession. Hastings was allowed to leave while of the other members of the council were arrested.

While the activities inside of the Tower are up to debate, most agree with what happened when the meeting ended. While the true motive is unknown, when Hastings stepped out of the Tower onto the Green the guards grabbed him and hastily removed his head. No charges were given against him and no arrest was attempted. He was executed very suddenly, and the real reason for it is unknown.

I have heard Richardians say that he made Richard mad, and that’s why he was executed. Of course that doesn’t sound like the makings of a good king, since under the Magna Carta no monarch can end a citizen’s life without charges and a trial. Though some have said that the trial of the Earl of Warwick was a sham, he still had charges and a trial. By executing Hastings in such a way, Richard not only became a tyrant but frightened all the other lords and made them question their own safety. If Richard did not think it was necessary to give someone due process before their execution, there was no reason to believe he wouldn’t kill anyone else at any time. More frightening, there was no reason to believe that Richard would follow any of the laws that were supposed to be imposed on him by Magna Carta, which made him even more dangerous. Is it any wonder that so many lords had no problem turning on him in 1483 and again in 1485?

My apologies to any Richardian who thinks that this is an unfair assessment. In my opinion Richard was NOT a good king for no other reason than he thought he was above the law. Compare that to Henry VII, who went through with trials of people he believed to be threats against him and went to Parliament to raise funds to go to war. This show a healthy respect for law, even if it forced Henry to undertake actions he may have found superfluous or unnecessary. Richard clearly did not have any respect for the law, and if he had been king longer, I don’t doubt we would have seen more deviations from the rule of law in the rest of his reign.


Filed under General History

5 responses to “William Hastings, the Man Richardians Want to Forget

  1. Jo

    weird, I was thinking about this the other day if RIII had won, I do not think he would have continued as king with this behavior, unfortunately people think of him as almost a saint and be unreal, if he had lived the things would be different, and almost makes me wish he had won because the truth would end up appearing like this phrase from the movie the Dark Knight:
    “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

    • I have a hard time believing that he would have given up power and started following the law. Of course this is pure conjecture, but it makes me think of what George III said about George Washington- “If he does that, he’ll be the greatest man in the world.” People don’t normally give up power. I think that’s what’s scary about a boy-king in their minority, the possibility that a regent may not give up the throne in the end.

  2. katfaerie

    I’d be more inclined to take you seriously if you spelled Ricardian correctly.

  3. I’ve been thinking how the Yorkists had form (a word we use in Britain which means something like a history, or a pattern of action), when it came to getting rid of inconvenient relatives long before 1483.
    Consider the following:
    Henry VI, cousin of Edward IV and deposed King: murdered 1471
    Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter: formerly brother-in-law of Edward IV, but also a Lancastrian claimant via his descent from the sister of Henry IV.
    Diedin suspicious circumstances, reportedly falling off a ship and drowning in the English channel in 1474.
    George Duke of Clarence- executed, some say on a very shaky legal basis, 1478.

    That is not even considering the unusual career of Sir John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, and enforcer of Edward IV, who effectively used Roman Law and Continental models to deal with traitors, instead of traditional English Law. Roman law, it should be noted, permitted such actions as torture, which was forbidden under English Common Law.

    Many English Kings, sadly, resorted to bending the law when it suited their purposes, or just acted outside of it when then felt they needed to. Its absurd to believe Richard III was somehow immune to the vices common to Medieval aristocracy and royalty.
    It took many centuries for the concept that the King was not, in fact, above the law to be fully implemented. It might be argued that it did not truly happen until after the English Civil War of the 1600s. That, as they say, is another story.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s