¹ Hanham, Hanham, ‘Richard III, Lord Hastings and the Historians,' English Historical Review 87 (1972) 233–248. See also note 108 infra. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Historical Manuscripts Commission, Reports of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts IX ¹ (1883) 145a. Hereafter cited as HMC.Google Scholar

³ Mancini, Mancini, The Usurpation of Richard the Third, 2nd ed., ed. and trans. Armstrong, C. A. J. (Oxford 1969) 115, n. 45. Hereafter cited as Armstrong.Google Scholar

⁴ York Civic Records, ed. Raine, Raine (Yorkshire Archeological Society, Record Series, 98 [1938] I 71; York Records: Extracts from the Municipal Records of the City of York ed. Davies, R. (London 1843) 142.Google Scholar

⁵ The following standard accounts, quite different in their interpretations, agree on the chronology and basic facts: Gairdner, Gairdner, History of the Life and Reign of Richard the Third , rev. ed. (Cambridge 1898 ); Clements, Sir Markham, R., Richard III: His Life & Character (London 1906); Murray Kendall, Paul, Richard the Third (New York 1965); and Cheetham, Cheetham, The Life and Times of Richard III (London 1972). In what follows I shall assume this basic chronology and cite only specific source materials.Google Scholar

⁶ HMC, XI, App. III ( 1887) 170. Edward's ‘convenient haste’ confirms what is otherwise purely a chroniclers' story about the coronation being planned for May 4.Google Scholar

⁷ The evidence for this correspondence, all from chronicles, is reviewed by Kendall, , 172–185.Google Scholar

⁸ Grey had been sent from London the previous day: Kendall, , 189.Google Scholar

⁹ Printed in Armstrong, 119, n. 59. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Armstrong, 118, n. 55 and 119, n. 59; Kendall, , 191–192.Google Scholar

¹¹ Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1476–85 352–353. Google Scholar

¹² Grants, Etc. from the Crown During the Reign of Edward the Fifth, ed. Nichols, John G. (London 1854) 46, 54, 57, etc; hereafter cited as Nichols. The title ‘defensour’ appears to have been added only in the latter part of May; on the 21st, for example (p. 29), Richard is still only ‘protectour.’Google Scholar

¹³ Nichols, , xiii; Seventh Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records ( 1846) App. ii 212.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Nichols, , 13.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Halsted, Halsted, Richard III. as Duke of Gloucester and King of England (Philadelphia 1844) 447–448, doc. SS. I find convincing Halsted's argument for accepting the clothes described in this document as Edward V's coronation robes.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Chrimes, S. B., English Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge 1936) 168–178.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Nichols, , xxxii, 23.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Nichols, , 69–71; the quotation appears on 70.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Nichols, , 4.Google Scholar

²⁰ Nichols, , 5–9, 11–14, 31, 33–36, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Nichols, , 2.Google Scholar

²² Armstrong, , 81 and 119, n. 59.Google Scholar

²³ Nichols, , 2.Google Scholar

²⁴ Nichols, , 3; Armstrong, , 121–122, n. 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ See Armstrong's citations and discussion, 117, n. 52. Google Scholar

²⁶ The Stonor Letters and Papers 1290–1483, ed. Kingsford, C. L. (London 1919) II 159.Google Scholar

²⁷ Armstrong, , 85.Google Scholar

²⁸ Registrum Thome Bourgchier, ed. R. H. du Boulay, F. (Oxford 1957) 52–53; Kendall, 199.Google Scholar

²⁹ Printed in Armstrong, 124–125, n. 74. Google Scholar

³⁰ Stonor Letters II 160.Google Scholar

³¹ Kendall, , 203–213 has an excellent general discussion of the composition of the Council and the tensions and rivalries within it.Google Scholar

³² Nichols, , 69–71. As additional support for the hypothesis that the coronation was decided upon only after some delay, note that Stallworth's first letter of June 9 (Stonor Letters II 159–160) reports the date of the coronation as recent news. Note also that Polydore Vergil (Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History, Comprising the Reigns of Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard III., ed. Ellis, Henry [London 1844] 180) asserts that Russell's part of the Council was preparing to proclaim the day of the coronation only at the time Hastings' conspiracy was discovered, which Vergil assumes to have been June 13.Google Scholar

³³ Chrimes, , 176–177.Google Scholar

³⁴ Chrimes, , 178.Google Scholar

³⁵ See below, at notes 43–44. Google Scholar

³⁶ York Civic Records I 73; I use the modernized spelling of Gairdner, 59–60.Google Scholar

³⁷ The Paston Letters, ed. Gairdner, Gairdner (London 1904) VI 71–72.Google Scholar

³⁸ E.g., Gairdner, , 59–64 (the Hastings' conspiracy explanation), and Markham, , 93–98 (the Stillington interpretation, though combined with discovery of Hastings' opposition).Google Scholar

³⁹ Kendall, , 223–224, 234–235; Armstrong, , 132–134, n. 104.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Markham, , 93–98.Google Scholar

⁴¹ E.g. , Levine, Levine, ‘Richard III — Usurper or Lawful King?' Speculum 34 (1959) 391–401; see especially 392–393 and note 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² Armstrong, , 89.Google Scholar

⁴³ See below, at notes 79–91 and 101–105. Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cf. Gairdner, , 60.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ York Civic Records I 75.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ HMC V 547a. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Both the York letter of June 10 and the one to Lord Neville of June 11 were carried by the same messenger, Ratcliffe, and he took four days to reach York. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ On the arrival of members in London and Richard's concern, see Armstrong, 95. Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Gairdner, , 86.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Stonor Letters II 160–161.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Stallworth was a prebendary of Lincoln Cathedral (Gaidner, 58); Stonor was to be attainted for supporting Buckingham's rebellion (Stonor Letters II 162). Google Scholar

⁵² Stonor Letters II 160.Google Scholar

⁵³ Stonor Letters II 161.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Since Stallworth reported in his second letter that he had been sick, he may have been confined to bed for some days and hence have known only of the authorization for the supersedeas, and not of the specific circumstances that had caused its issuance. On this, see the following paragraphs through note 57. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Armstrong, , 89.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Armstrong, , 89.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ This conclusion follows from the dates and distances involved. York received the supersedeas on the 21st; at Sheriff Hutton, about a day's ride north of York, Rivers appears to have heard on June 23, the day of his last will and testament, that he was to be executed. Thus, in all likelihood, the same messenger brought both the York supersedeas and Rivers' death warrant. In any event, the two decisions must have been taken simultaneously in London. Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The most impartial presentation of this point has been made by Myers, A. R., ‘The Character of Richard III,' History Today 4 (1954) 511–521.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ That Stallworth appears to have discerned no evil motives behind the supersedeas suggests a lack of premeditation, but that is scarcely conclusive. Google Scholar

⁶⁰ That the Council as late as June 16 believed in Richard's good intentions is demonstrated by its willingness to employ force to make Elizabeth Woodville surrender Richard of York. If the Council had suspected treachery, one assumes it would have opposed this action. Google Scholar

⁶¹ Hastings' moves and Richard's response also eliminate another possible explanation for the issuance of the supersedeas: bureaucratic blundering. If the Council had approved of this writ in principle before June 16 and had ordered the Chancery to prepare copies against the chance they would be needed, it might be hypothesized that some of them were issued by mistake. But such a blunder could easily have been explained and rectified, calming the fears of the conspirators. That this did not occur suggests that the issuance of the supersedeas was no error. Google Scholar

⁶² It seems likely that the imminent arrival of northern troops became public knowledge in London only at this point. If it had been known on the 16th, the threat would presumably have led Hastings and others on the Council to oppose the liberation of the Duke of York. The wording of Stallworth's letter to Stonor (above, at note 53) suggests that his knowledge of these events was very recent. Google Scholar

⁶³ Stonor Letters II 161. Hanham emends ‘meue’ to ‘mene'; I agree.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ I am indebted to Alison Hanham for this identification. She cites Register Abbatiae Johannis Whethamstede, ed. Riley, H. T. (London 1872–73) II 265–267 as her source.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland, ed. and trans. Riley, H. T. (London 1854) 488. Hereafter cited as Croyland. Google Scholar

⁶⁶ More, More, The History of King Richard III, ed. Sylvester, R. S. (New Haven and London 1963) 48. ‘Jane’ Shore's real name was ‘Elizabeth.’Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Halsted, , 456, doc. HHH.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Armstrong, , 91.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Since Forster was steward of Albans, Albans, one wonders whether Dorset may not have been hiding there. That would explain why and how Forster had become involved in the conspiracy.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Vergil, , 175–176.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See above, at notes 27 and 31. Google Scholar

⁷² For IV's, IV's ‘record and process'and the specific charges brought against Richard II, see Rotuli Parliamentorum, ed. Strachey, J. (London 1767–77) III 415–434. Hereafter cited as RP.Google Scholar

⁷³ Original Letters, ed. Ellis, Ellis (London 1827) 2nd Ser. I 148.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ E.g., Armstrong, 95; More, 58, 65–76; Vergil, 184–186; The Great Chronicle of London, ed. Thomas, A. H. and Thornley, I. D. (London 1938) 230.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Markham, , 109, 127; Halsted, , 450–451, doc. YY; Excerpta Historica, ed. Bentley, S. (London 1831) 384.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Armstrong, , 95.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Excerpta Historica, 382; Armstrong, , 100–101.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Stonor Letters II 161.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Great Chronicle as modernized in English Historical Documents 1327–1485, ed. Myers, A. R. (New York 1969) 334–335.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Armstrong, , 95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸¹ Vergil, , 183–185.Google Scholar

⁸² Fabyan, Fabyan, The New Chronicles of England and France (London 1811) 669.Google Scholar

⁸³ de Commynes, Philippe, Mémoires de Philippe de Commynes, Soc. de l'hist. de France, Publications, 32 (1843) 156–158.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Croyland, 489.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ More, , 58–77. Partisans of Richard have frequently charged that More substituted Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Butler so that he could, with complete honesty, deny the story. My own view is that More's error indicates that Henry VII had successfully suppressed the contents of Richard's act of succession, that thirty years later the name of the lady had been lost or confused, and that More had to guess the identity of the lady in question.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Compare this passage with RP VI 240–241. The same points are made, in the same order, and are often similarly expressed. Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Armstrong, , 3, 23, 105.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Kendall, , 241–242 and note 17; Armstrong, , 61–63.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Kendall, , 43, 51–52.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Two inferences appear justified here: first, that people in London still did not know Richard's intentions on June 22 and, second, that Richard had encountered significant opposition among the prelates of the Council. On the first point, it seems likely that Shaa was dispatched to Paul's Cross precisely to explain the situation to people who were assembling in anticipation of the coronation. On the second point, it is striking that the person given this task was not a bishop, as in 1327, but a simple mendicant, even though related to the mayor. Vox populi, vox Dei — sed non episcoporum? Google Scholar

⁹¹ Statutes of the Realm (London 1810–28) II 380–391.Google Scholar

⁹² The literature is enormous, but see: Clarke, M. V. and Galbraith, V. H., ‘The Deposition of Richard II,' Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 14 (1930) 125–181; Lapsley, Lapsley, ‘The Parliamentary Title of Henry IV,' English Historical Review 49 (1934) 423–449, 577–606, and ‘Richard II's “Last Parliament,”’ English Historical Review 53 (1938) 53–78; Richardson, H. G., ‘The Elections to the October Parliament of 1399,' Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 16 (1939) 137–143, and ‘Richard II's Last Parliament,’ English Historical Review 52 (1937) 39–47; Wilkinson, B., ‘The Deposition of Richard, II and the Accession of Henry IV,' English Historical Review 54 (1939) 215–239; and, finally, Wilkinson's Constitutional History of Medieval England 1216–1399 (London 1948–52) II 284–327.Google Scholar

⁹³ For original, see note 72; translation from Carl Stephenson and Marcham, F. G., Sources of English Constitutional History (New York 1937) 251.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ The point is complicated and not fully developed here; for other aspects see: Wood, C. T., ‘Personality, Politics, and Constitutional Progress: The Lessons of Edward II,' Studia Gratiana 15 (1972) [Post Scripta] 519–536.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Although most of my references are to 1399, I have all three earlier depositions very much in mind. A good comparison of the three has yet to appear, but they (as well as the deposition of Edward V) should play a central role in Dunham, William H., Jr.'s forthcoming volume on constitutional history.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ I base this conclusion partly on Richard's long delay in calling a Parliament. More important, however, is the evidence provided by the act of succession that the Parliament of 1484 finally passed. Its language, quoted in the following paragragh, emphasizes the extent to which Parliament's action was unneeded. That suggests to me, at least, that Richard took this step not because he wanted to, but because he found it unavoidable. Google Scholar

⁹⁷ RP VI 241–242. Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Dunham, W. H., Jr., ‘Richard III and the Three Estates of the Realm: A Quest for Authority.’ I am indebted to Professor Dunham for sending me a copy of this unpublished paper. His views concerning Parliament as a court of record and as representative of the realm have strongly influenced my own.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ A point made by Dunham in the paper cited in note 98. For my own views, see ‘Queens, Queans, and Kingship: An Inquiry into Theories of Royal Legitimacy in Late Medieval England and France,’ to be published in 1975 by Princeton University Press in Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages, a Festschrift for Strayer, Joseph R. edited by Jordan, W. C., McNab, C. B., and Ruiz, T. F. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See above, at note 73, and Armstrong, 131–132, n. 103. The fact that Richard began his reign on June 26, and not on April 9 as the nature of his claims allowed, demonstrates that he, too, saw that his title had no constitutional validity until it had been ratified by a body in some way representative of the realm. Since Edward V's reign had been brief, and Richard had served as Protector for much of it, a decision to pre-date to April 9 would not have created anything like the legal difficulties that ensued when Henry VII attempted to assert that his reign had begun just before Bosworth. Because Richard had every reason to stress direct inheritance from Edward IV rather than human election, his failure to commence his first regnal year on April 9 may be taken as further proof of the fact, argued at length in my article cited in note 99, that the hereditary principle was relatively weak in England and had always to be confirmed by other legitimating elements such as coronation and some form of ‘popular’ approval. Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Original Letters I 149–150.Google Scholar

¹⁰² RP VI 241. Google Scholar

¹⁰³ RP VI 241. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See the analysis in Levine. Even if the precontract story were true, Edward V's legitimacy would not have been affected, since Eleanor Butler died in 1468, whereas Edward was born only two years later. Further, the prelates and barons had approved the marriage with Elizabeth Woodville in September 1464 at Reading; although this approval came four months after the event, it seems adequate to rebut Richard's charges. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Earlier statutes such as Provisors and Praemunire had concerned themselves solely with legal, administrative, and political matters in which theological and sacramental determinations were not involved. In the case of laws against heresy (e.g., 3 Henry, IV, Statutes of the Realm II 126–128), the theological and sacramental questions remained exclusively the province of clerics, and the secular government intervened only after the heretics refused to obey the clerical decrees against them and their views.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Croyland 495–496.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ It seems inconceivable that such disparate people as Henry Tudor, Elizabeth Woodville, John Morton, Dorset, and Buckingham could ever have formed an alliance in favor of Henry Tudor in the fall of 1483 unless all of them had become convinced that the princes were dead. That does not prove, of course, that they were dead, but it makes it seem most likely. My point in the text depends not on what was in fact the case, but only on what people in general believed it to be. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Since this article went to press, Alison Hanham's redating of Hastings' execution (above, note 1) has been challenged by Wolffe, B. F., ‘When and Why Did Hastings Lose his head?' English Historical Review 89 (1974) 835–844. See also Geoffrey Wheeler, ‘Who is Foster?’ The Ricardian: Journal of the Richard III Society 40 (March 1973) 16–19. Nevertheless, I find even the new evidence advanced more supportive of Hanham's hypothesis (247–248) that the government may have tried to conceal the true date, June 20, than it is of a return to the traditional 13th. All of Wolffe's and Wheeler's evidence either comes from governmental sources or is designed to please those in power; none of it can be dated earlier than August 1483, precisely the point at which increasing unrest made it desirable for Richard to dissociate Hastings' death from any claim that it had resulted from the Lord Chamberlain's opposition to the removal of Edward V. Lastly, all of it concerns only the date of that one event, something easily obscured, and not the place of that event in a series, something infinitely more difficult to conceal or distort. As Hanham points out, a majority of the Tudor chronicles and Mancini all report a sequence of events requiring an execution on June 20. Moreover, all of Hanham's other evidence dates from June itself, and none of it has an official source or purpose. To it I would also add the ambiguous jottings found in The Cely Papers, ed. Maiden, H. E. (Camden Society 3rd Series I [1900]) 132–133, which both Hanham and Wolffe think were written on the day of Hastings' death: since Cely appears to fear for the safety of the Duke of York as well as of the King, June 13 is an unlikely date because at that point the duke was still in sanctuary. Further, it is difficult to believe (above, at note 56) that the Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury, ‘suspecting no guile,’ could have persuaded the queen to surrender her youngest son on June 16 if Hastings had been executed without trial—and the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Ely summarily imprisoned, contrary to the provisions of canon law—only three days before. Hanham's book, Richard III and His Early Historians 1483–1535, page proof for which she has graciously shared with me, is scheduled for publication by Oxford University Press in August 1975, and in it (24–29) the interested reader will find a further brief elaboration of her views. With regard to Wolffe's contention (836–838) that she may have misread the significance of the records of the Mercers and Merchant Adventurers, her convincing reply has been accepted by the English Historical Review for publication at an early date.CrossRefGoogle Scholar