Crowland continuator and Titulus Regius

Apologies if this has already been discussed and "settled".

Given that everyone describes the chronicler as anti Ricardian and that it
was dangerous to have kept a copy of Titulus Regius, does anyone have a
convincing argument as to why he did so?

A J

Did he keep a copy? I thought that there was only one extant, the draft copy found in the Tower.



-----Original Message-----
From: ajhibbard@...
To: <>
Sent: Tue, May 7, 2013 5:05 am
Subject: Crowland continuator and Titulus Regius



Apologies if this has already been discussed and "settled".

Given that everyone describes the chronicler as anti Ricardian and that it
was dangerous to have kept a copy of Titulus Regius, does anyone have a
convincing argument as to why he did so?

A J



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Tamara wrote:
>
> Did he keep a copy? I thought that there was only one extant, the draft copy found in the Tower.

Carol responds:

I don't know whether the Croyland chronicler had a copy of Titulus Regius or merely summarized it (or rather, the original parchment roll quoted in TR) from memory, but he certainly took a chance by doing even that. To be sure, he presents Richard's election by the Three Estates as an act of usurpation, but the summary itself is accurate:

"It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights."

http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=518

In the next section, which refers to the Parliament of January 27, he doesn't refer to Titulus Regius by name but does state, "Parliament confirmed the title, by which the king had in the preceding summer, ascended the throne; and although that Lay Court found itself [at first] unable to give a definition of his rights, when the question of the marriage was discussed, still, in consequence of the fears entertained of the most persevering [of his adversaries], it presumed to do so, and did so: while at the same time attainders were made of . . . many lords and men of high rank, besides peers and commoners, as well as three bishops . . . ."

http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=522

The chronicler, who is trying to present Richard as a usurper and tyrant, neglects to mention the important legislation passed by this Parliament and seems, if I read the translation correctly, to imply that they confirmed the title for fear of Richard's adversaries (someone correct me if I'm misreading here), still, the very fact that he mentioned the confirmation in Parliament of Richard's title as previously set out was very dangerous in a Tudor regime.

Apparently, these references led to the discovery of a copy of the actual Titulus Regius by an antiquary named Camden:

"We have to thank the anonymous Second Continuator of the Croyland Chronicle who summarized the contents of this "rolle of parchement", which set forth Richard's claim to the throne. The Chronicle itself came to light early in the 17th century, and soon afterwards William Camden discovered the long-buried Act of Settlement amongst Private Acts filed away in the Tower, where it had escaped Henry's purge. Cartographer John Speed printed more details from the Titulus in his book, History of Great Britain in 1611, and Sir George Buck used it as a source document for his better known work, The History of King Richard the Third, published in 1619. It was the beginning of Ricardian revisionism."

http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Titulus%20Regius.htm

I had thought that events were the other way around (that Buck found the Croyland chronicle and that his mention of the parchment roll led to the discovery of Titulus Regius), but without a good copy of Buck's book, and with inadequate references to the finding of Titulus Regius in all the books I've consulted, I can't tell at this point what really happened.

Wikipedia says that the chronicler had a copy of Titulus Regius, which he transcribed into the chronicle. That much, at least, is obviously untrue since the chronicle contains only the references I've quoted. The article also claims that TR was discovered by Buck along with the Croyland chronicle.

If anyone has a more accurate account of what really happened with the finding of Titulus Regius (and whether the chronicler had a copy), please post quotes and sources.

Thanks,

Carol

Thanks. Guess I was A bit confused about the exact history of the survival
of Titulus Regius. I still can't help wondering why someone anti Richard
would have discussed it.

A j

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013, justcarol67 wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Tamara wrote:
> >
> > Did he keep a copy? I thought that there was only one extant, the draft
> copy found in the Tower.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know whether the Croyland chronicler had a copy of Titulus Regius
> or merely summarized it (or rather, the original parchment roll quoted in
> TR) from memory, but he certainly took a chance by doing even that. To be
> sure, he presents Richard's election by the Three Estates as an act of
> usurpation, but the summary itself is accurate:
>
> "It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of
> parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that
> he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his
> marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother,
> George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time,
> no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of
> York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For
> which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of
> lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights."
>
> http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=518
>
> In the next section, which refers to the Parliament of January 27, he
> doesn't refer to Titulus Regius by name but does state, "Parliament
> confirmed the title, by which the king had in the preceding summer,
> ascended the throne; and although that Lay Court found itself [at first]
> unable to give a definition of his rights, when the question of the
> marriage was discussed, still, in consequence of the fears entertained of
> the most persevering [of his adversaries], it presumed to do so, and did
> so: while at the same time attainders were made of . . . many lords and men
> of high rank, besides peers and commoners, as well as three bishops . . . ."
>
> http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=522
>
> The chronicler, who is trying to present Richard as a usurper and tyrant,
> neglects to mention the important legislation passed by this Parliament and
> seems, if I read the translation correctly, to imply that they confirmed
> the title for fear of Richard's adversaries (someone correct me if I'm
> misreading here), still, the very fact that he mentioned the confirmation
> in Parliament of Richard's title as previously set out was very dangerous
> in a Tudor regime.
>
> Apparently, these references led to the discovery of a copy of the actual
> Titulus Regius by an antiquary named Camden:
>
> "We have to thank the anonymous Second Continuator of the Croyland
> Chronicle who summarized the contents of this "rolle of parchement", which
> set forth Richard's claim to the throne. The Chronicle itself came to light
> early in the 17th century, and soon afterwards William Camden discovered
> the long-buried Act of Settlement amongst Private Acts filed away in the
> Tower, where it had escaped Henry's purge. Cartographer John Speed printed
> more details from the Titulus in his book, History of Great Britain in
> 1611, and Sir George Buck used it as a source document for his better known
> work, The History of King Richard the Third, published in 1619. It was the
> beginning of Ricardian revisionism."
>
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Titulus%20Regius.htm
>
> I had thought that events were the other way around (that Buck found the
> Croyland chronicle and that his mention of the parchment roll led to the
> discovery of Titulus Regius), but without a good copy of Buck's book, and
> with inadequate references to the finding of Titulus Regius in all the
> books I've consulted, I can't tell at this point what really happened.
>
> Wikipedia says that the chronicler had a copy of Titulus Regius, which he
> transcribed into the chronicle. That much, at least, is obviously untrue
> since the chronicle contains only the references I've quoted. The article
> also claims that TR was discovered by Buck along with the Croyland
> chronicle.
>
> If anyone has a more accurate account of what really happened with the
> finding of Titulus Regius (and whether the chronicler had a copy), please
> post quotes and sources.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Carol wrote:

//snip//
"If anyone has a more accurate account of what really happened with the
finding of Titulus Regius (and whether the chronicler had a copy), please
post quotes and sources."


Doug here:
Would copies of Titulus Regius have been sent to all the bishops? If so,
that would mean the Croyland Continuator could easily have had access to the
copy sent to Ely.
Then there's also the possibility that Titulus Regius was read out to
congregation gathered in the Cathedral.
Because I *do* know that at least one important Act of Parliament was to be
read before congregations during the reign of James II/VII and the refusal
by the bishops to do so was the spark that ignited the "Glorious Revolution"
of 1688. Was the reading of important documents in churches and cathedrals
an established method of getting information out to the citizens?
And copies might also have been sent to any entity (corporation?) with a
charter from the King, such as Cambridge, Oxford, London and other
cities/towns, but I couldn't say for certain.
I know tt's not really a "source" as you requested, and one does have to do
some inferring, but still...
Doug