The other important scene in my book which differs fundamentally from traditional assumption, is the accusation and speedy execution of William, Lord Hastings. In a somewhat bizarre and unfinished story, later entitled ‘The History of King Richard III’, Sir Thomas More wrote in the second/third decade of the 16th century that Baron Hastings was arrested and arbitrarily beheaded within minutes of accusation without trial or justice of any kind. No document at the time of the event has corroborated the details of More’s story. The only reports remaining to us from that time simply state that Lord Hastings was accused of treason, (some claim his innocence, others saying nothing either way) and was executed accordingly. It does appear that the execution took place on the same day as the arrest, therefore leaving no time for a normal common-law trial by jury. The execution ‘within minutes’ claimed much later by Thomas More, however, is not only unsubstantiated but highly unlikely since the arrest took place during a full council meeting in the presence of some of the most powerful lords of the land. Because Richard III in his more mundane dealings with his subjects (both before and after becoming king) was particularly punctilious concerning matters of justice and law, this act of sudden execution has surprised many and led traditional thinkers to suppose it was an act of sudden fury, both illegal and unjust, proving Richard to be the ambitious villain they assume he was.
At the time Richard was not yet king. It is, however, probable that in his capacity as ‘Protector and Defender of the Realm against enemies both external and internal’, he could sanction indictment and trial where treason was concerned. And contemporary accounts definitely state that treason was the accusation. No details of what the treason entailed have survived, although a public proclamation was made within hours of the event. One report stated that Hastings was charged with laying an ambush for the Protector, bringing concealed arms into the council chamber so that he could attack him unawares. There was, of course, no lack of witnesses. Indeed, contemporary accounts profess no surprise nor outrage at the Protector taking justice into his own hands, indicating their acceptance of his right to do so. The law concerning treason at that time was not so clear cut.
Concurrently with his protectorship Richard also held the office of High Constable of England, conferred on him for life. This was a military office with its own Constable’s Court which tried cases of treason under the Law of Arms (as opposed to the common law). It was a court with authority to act summarily, without normal process of indictment, without trial by jury, and without appeal against the sentence of the Constable whose authority in such matters was second only to that of the king. We cannot know whether Richard conducted an ad hoc trial by empanelling persons and officers already present at the Tower – it is possible, but the Constable’s Court followed no strict procedure and was not required to keep records, although witnesses could be called. Certainly we cannot assume there was no trial – although this appears to be the assumption most people have adopted these days – based on the Thomas More stories.
If the powerful magnate Hastings had hatched a treasonous conspiracy (which certainly appears to be the case and was quoted at the time even by those hostile to Richard himself) a quick solution to a highly dangerous situation might have seemed the best deterrent. Other influential council members were present and would have both stood witness and discussed the necessary solution to the situation. Certainly this was not a vendetta against Hastings since several others were arrested at the same time – both within the council chamber and elsewhere. Indeed, arrests were carefully timed to coincide, even those taking place at some distance across London. Clearly the action was planned to minimise danger, and put a quick stop to whatever had been plotted and then discovered.
Therefore the picture I present in this book is certainly a possibility. Once again there exists no particular evidence that such an event occurred bur certainly, the Constable held the power to order a summary trial without jury in whatever place he wished, and without warning. He himself could be the judge. Whether he used it or not we cannot know, but since Richard held such power, I see no reason for him NOT to have used it… As usual with this controversial king, on the basis of present evidence the truth remains hidden. The myth has superseded the few actual facts we know for sure – and most of the contemporary documentation concerning his later life was quickly destroyed or wildly misrepresented by the victorious Tudor regime which followed.
All the other historical situations described in my novel are accurate according to what is known from historical records. The actions of the Woodville family, the difficulties following King Edward’s death, the circumstances of his death (though not the cause), and the election of Richard III as king following the declaration of King Edward’s marriage as bigamous, are all absolutely accurate according to contemporary accounts and the remaining official documentation.
I am much indebted to many historical experts and books for my research on this era – both those Tudor sources clearly antagonistic towards Richard III’s reign and those contemporary and less politically biased accounts, then also to those more modern and muted studies which attempt to cut through the old propaganda, presenting a more open-minded summary of whatever can be discovered concerning this eventful and puzzling time in history.
Acknowledgments
I have the greatest pleasure in acknowledging the enormous help and encouragement which has been given to me throughout the months I spent writing this book by my family and friends, in particular my daughter Gill and my granddaughter Emma without whom I could not have reached this stage. I also wish to thank the two much admired experts on the historical era that serves as a background to my fictional story.
The first of these, Annette Carson who has recently been a major part of the Looking For Richard project, backing Philippa Langley and John Ashdown Hill in discovering the exact place of Richard III’s long lost grave in Leicester, England, in August 2012 and so, with the negotiated co-operation of the archaeological team at Leicester University, finding his certified remains. She is also the author of three excellent non-fiction books on the life of this medieval king and the mysteries and controversies surrounding him. Her remarkable first book, Richard III: The Maligned King, has now been followed by outstanding others. The second historical expert is Brian Wainwright, author of the brilliant books Within the Fetterloch, The Adventures of Alianore Audley and more.
I am immensely grateful to both for their immense generosity and expertise, for although I write fiction, I am extremely serious about the absolute accuracy of my backgrounds and the authenticity of all historical facts included in my stories. But naturally, should any mistakes have crept in unannounced, the fault is mine.
Barbara Gaskell Denvil
About the Author
My passion is for late English medieval history and this forms the background for my historical fiction. I also have a love of fantasy and the wild freedom of the imagination, with its haunting threads of sadness and the exploration of evil. Although all my books have romantic undertones, I would not class them purely as romances. We all wish to enjoy some romance in our lives, there is also a yearning for adventure, mystery, suspense, friendship and spontaneous experience. My books include all of this and more, but my greatest loves are the beauty of the written word, and the utter fascination of good characterisation. Bringing my characters to life is my principal aim.