Petition to Richard re Assuming the Throne

Dear Members,
A question: the petition presented to Richard around June 25-26th was supposed to be substantively the same as the Titulus Regius text. Does anyone know what that is based on, specifically where that assertions comes from? What evidence is there to support this contention? Are historians comparing contemporary commentators descriptions of a document which no longer exists with the surviving Titulus text?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Fairrichard3 asks if there is supporting evidence that the text of Titulus Regius in 1484 substantively reflects the text of the petition of 26 June 1483. Please forgive me if I quote the entire passage from 'The Maligned King' where I deal with this (pp.104-5):

"The petition presented to Richard was later incorporated into an Act of Parliament to confirm his right to the throne. This act, Titulus Regius, is known to have quoted the petition verbatim, so we have a clear record of the contents of the original parchment roll.
Nevertheless it has been contended (inevitably) that the same text did not appear in both documents. This suggestion has been comprehensively refuted by Dr Anne Sutton, who points out that in the words of the act itself, `it is precisely stated that it contains a text of the 1483 petition'. She cites corroboration in Richard's letter to Lord Mountjoy at Calais on 28 June 1483, which `says clearly that a copy of the petition to Richard to take the throne is annexed to the covering letter in order that all the details and reasons may be known to the citizens of Calais'. It should also be noted that, far from claiming appointment by Parliament (as some commentators insinuate), Richard's letter correctly speaks of `a bille of peticione whiche the lordes spirituelx & temporelx and the commons of this land solemplye porrected unto the kinges highnes at London the xxvi day of Juyne'. At the same time emissaries were sent to the royal houses of Europe announcing England's new monarch and detailing the circumstances of his accession. Having done all this, Dr Sutton continues, it would obviously have been unacceptable, indeed foolhardy, to formulate an `improved' version to put before Parliament several months later."
Anne Sutton's article is 'Richard III's "tytylle & right": A New Discovery', The Ricardian, June 1977.

I hope this adequately sets out the logic behind the conclusion that the text was the same. It isn't irrefutable evidence, but on the other hand, as Dr Sutton says, the original petition was so widely desseminated that the Act of 1484 could scarcely produce something different and say in so many words that it was the same.
Regards, Annette

Fairrichard3 asks if there is supporting evidence that the text of Titulus Regius in 1484 substantively reflects the text of the petition of 26 June 1483. Please forgive me if I quote the entire passage from 'The Maligned King' where I deal with this (pp.104-5):

"The petition presented to Richard was later incorporated into an Act of Parliament to confirm his right to the throne. This act, Titulus Regius, is known to have quoted the petition verbatim, so we have a clear record of the contents of the original parchment roll.
Nevertheless it has been contended (inevitably) that the same text did not appear in both documents. This suggestion has been comprehensively refuted by Dr Anne Sutton, who points out that in the words of the act itself, `it is precisely stated that it contains a text of the 1483 petition'. She cites corroboration in Richard's letter to Lord Mountjoy at Calais on 28 June 1483, which `says clearly that a copy of the petition to Richard to take the throne is annexed to the covering letter in order that all the details and reasons may be known to the citizens of Calais'. It should also be noted that, far from claiming appointment by Parliament (as some commentators insinuate), Richard's letter correctly speaks of `a bille of peticione whiche the lordes spirituelx & temporelx and the commons of this land solemplye porrected unto the kinges highnes at London the xxvi day of Juyne'. At the same time emissaries were sent to the royal houses of Europe announcing England's new monarch and detailing the circumstances of his accession. Having done all this, Dr Sutton continues, it would obviously have been unacceptable, indeed foolhardy, to formulate an `improved' version to put before Parliament several months later."
Anne Sutton's article is 'Richard III's "tytylle & right": A New Discovery', The Ricardian, June 1977.

I hope this adequately sets out the logic behind the conclusion that the text was the same. It isn't irrefutable evidence, but on the other hand, as Dr Sutton says, the original petition was so widely desseminated that the Act of 1484 could scarcely produce something different and say in so many words that it was the same.
Regards, Annette

Ooops, of course I mean "disseminated". And somehow I posted this twice. Apologies! Annette.

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Fairrichard3 asks if there is supporting evidence that the text of Titulus Regius in 1484 substantively reflects the text of the petition of 26 June 1483. Please forgive me if I quote the entire passage from 'The Maligned King' where I deal with this (pp.104-5):
>
> "The petition presented to Richard was later incorporated into an Act of Parliament to confirm his right to the throne. This act, Titulus Regius, is known to have quoted the petition verbatim, so we have a clear record of the contents of the original parchment roll.
> Nevertheless it has been contended (inevitably) that the same text did not appear in both documents. This suggestion has been comprehensively refuted by Dr Anne Sutton, who points out that in the words of the act itself, `it is precisely stated that it contains a text of the 1483 petition'. She cites corroboration in Richard's letter to Lord Mountjoy at Calais on 28 June 1483, which `says clearly that a copy of the petition to Richard to take the throne is annexed to the covering letter in order that all the details and reasons may be known to the citizens of Calais'. It should also be noted that, far from claiming appointment by Parliament (as some commentators insinuate), Richard's letter correctly speaks of `a bille of peticione whiche the lordes spirituelx & temporelx and the commons of this land solemplye porrected unto the kinges highnes at London the xxvi day of Juyne'. At the same time emissaries were sent to the royal houses of Europe announcing England's new monarch and detailing the circumstances of his accession. Having done all this, Dr Sutton continues, it would obviously have been unacceptable, indeed foolhardy, to formulate an `improved' version to put before Parliament several months later."
> Anne Sutton's article is 'Richard III's "tytylle & right": A New Discovery', The Ricardian, June 1977.
>
> I hope this adequately sets out the logic behind the conclusion that the text was the same. It isn't irrefutable evidence, but on the other hand, as Dr Sutton says, the original petition was so widely desseminated that the Act of 1484 could scarcely produce something different and say in so many words that it was the same.
> Regards, Annette
>

Dear Annette,

Thank you for your kind and detailed response, invaluable. I had not
thought of the foreign sources and will check the Sutton article as well as
"The Maligned King." It is fortunate alternative sources of the petition's
text exist as it is known that Henry VII and his parliament had ordered all
copies of Titulus Regius destroyed, yet one did survive.
Many thanks for your help.