"Translation" of the Repeal of Titulus Regius

Would anyone be interested in my translation into modern English of the repeal of Titulus Regius by Henry's Parliament? With luck, it would show up in one piece, unlike the bill I quoted before, which took about four tries to get right. The modern wording makes clear just how little was left of TR after it was repealed and expunged from the Rolls and how badly Henry and his supporters wanted it "out of remembrance, and also forgot." I had hoped that the original wording would convey that impression, along with the characterization of Richard as a tyrant and the bill itself as a malicious lie, but the late medieval English is admittedly hard to read and I can understand why some of you may have skipped those posts.

Carol, who will drop the subject if the response is a ringing silence

Where before this time, Richard, late Duke of Gloucester, and afterward in deed but not by right King of England, called Richard the III, caused a false and seditious bill of false and malicious imaginations, against all good and true disposition, to be put unto him, the beginning of which Bill is thus:

Please it your noble Grace to understand the considerations, election, and petition [that appears] below, etc.

"Which bill, after that, with all the continuance of the same, by authority of Parliament, held the first year of the usurped reign of the said late King Richard III, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved, and authorized, as in the same [bill] it more plainly appears.

"The King [Henry VII], at the special instance, desire, and prayer of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in the present Parliament assembled, will [that] it be ordained, established, and enacted, by the advice of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, that the said bill, act, and ratification, and all the circumstances and dependents of the same bill and act, for the false and seditious imaginations and untruths thereof, be void, annulled, repelled, irrite [unwritten?], and of no force nor effect.

"And that it be ordained by the said authority, that the said Bill be cancelled [and] destroyed, and that the said act, record and enrolling shall be taken and voided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and burned and utterly destroyed.

"And over this, be it ordained by the same authority that every person having any copy or remembrances of the said bill or act bring unto the chancellor of England for the time being the same copies or remembrances or utterly destroy them before the Feast of Easter next coming upon pain of imprisonment and making fine and ransom to the king at his will.

"So that all things said and remembered in the said bill and act thereof may be forever out of remembrance, and also forgot.

Carol earlier:

I wrote ("translating" an act of Parliament} ""The King [Henry VII], at the special instance, desire, and prayer of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in the present Parliament assembled, will [that] it be ordained"

Make that "The King [Henry VII] . . . *wills* [that] it be ordained." sorry about that.

Marie, if you or anyone else knows what "irrite" means, please let me know so I can fix that passage.

Thanks,

Carol

Where before this time, Richard, late Duke of Gloucester, and afterward in deed but not by right King of England, called Richard the III, caused a false and seditious bill of false and malicious imaginations, against all good and true disposition, to be put unto him, the beginning of which Bill is thus:

Please it your noble Grace to understand the considerations, election, and petition [that appears] below, etc.

"Which bill, after that, with all the continuance of the same, by authority of Parliament, held the first year of the usurped reign of the said late King Richard III, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved, and authorized, as in the same [bill] it more plainly appears.

"The King [Henry VII], at the special instance, desire, and prayer of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in the present Parliament assembled, will [that] it be ordained, established, and enacted, by the advice of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, that the said bill, act, and ratification, and all the circumstances and dependents of the same bill and act, for the false and seditious imaginations and untruths thereof, be void, annulled, repelled, irrite [unwritten?], and of no force nor effect.

"And that it be ordained by the said authority, that the said Bill be cancelled [and] destroyed, and that the said act, record and enrolling shall be taken and voided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and burned and utterly destroyed.

"And over this, be it ordained by the same authority that every person having any copy or remembrances of the said bill or act bring unto the chancellor of England for the time being the same copies or remembrances or utterly destroy them before the Feast of Easter next coming upon pain of imprisonment and making fine and ransom to the king at his will.

"So that all things said and remembered in the said bill and act thereof may be forever out of remembrance, and also forgot.

Thanks Carol, this is very useful. In that awkward passage, repelled should read 'repealed'. As for irrite, my Latin dictionary has irritus meaning 'invalid, void'.

Marie

Thanks Carol, this is very useful. In that awkward passage, repelled should read 'repealed'. As for irrite, my Latin dictionary has irritus meaning 'invalid, void'.

Carol responds:

You're very welcome (along with everyone who has thanked me.) Thanks very much for the corrections. "Repelled" is probably a typo on my part--or an oversight. I was thinking that "irrite" was something like "ir-" meaning "not" or "un-" plus "(w)rite." You're probably correct, but it's odd that they would choose a Latin word when they've already called it void, annulled, and of no force or effect. I'll make the needed corrections to my copy.

Meanwhile, the more documents we can find and "translate," the better. Too bad we'll probably never find Stillington's testimony or the council records for the Protectorate. I'm very suspicious of Robert Morton in that regard.

I just lost a message to Gilda resembling my second paragraph. Pardon any repetition if it shows up, but since I somehow hit Reply instead of Send, I don't think it will.

Carol

I don't think Henry's expunging of the records looks good at all. It would have been as if, instead of adding the 13th amendments, Article One would have just been rewritten. Or if that seems too extreme an example, instead of adding the 21st amendment, the 18th would ahve just been removed and the 19th and 20th renumbered. Any sort of expunging gives rise to questions of honesty. Today, when shown documents with portions redacted, it's hard not to wonder what it is they don't want us to know. And why.

Carol wrote

" it's odd that they would choose a Latin word when they've already called it void, annulled, and of no force or effect"

Marie replies:

Not odd at all - that's yet another change in the English language. What we condemn as tautology the medieval regarded as a very good way of emphasising and clarifying a point. Strings of synonyms are really common in medieval legalese,

Hilary wrote:

Is one reason for the repeal of TR that Henry had dated his reign from the day before Bosworth, so the repeal makes Richard an unlawful king?

Marie replies:

We have Crowland to thank for the idea that Henry dated his reign to 21st August. In fact, this is nowhere stated, and he had been behaving as king for several months before Bosworth. The Year Book makes it clear that the Act of Attainder attainting "Richard Duke of Gloucester" and his followers for opposing Henry in arms on 21st & 22nd August was passed *before* both the Act settling the crown on Henry VII *and* the repeal of TR, so I'd tend to agree with David to some extent, in that I do think the repeal - like the marriage itself - was more about silencing the hordes of pro-EIV critics (I'm not so convinced he did it to please the Woodvilles). At any rate, the repeal of TR seems not to have been even discussed until *after* Henry had been forced to agree to marry Elizabeth.

The last thing Henry really wanted was to tie the idea of Richard's legitimacy as king to TR because it would be as good as acknowledging that if Edward IV's children were legitimate they had a better claim than he did himself. That is why the Act of repeal stipulates that the repeal is not to be "

hurtful or prejudicial to the act of establishment of the crown of England to the King".

Henry couldn't erase people's memories but he could stop them talking about the terms of TR; again, the Act of Repeal says it is being done "so that all things said and remembered in the said bill and Act thereof may be for ever out of remembrance and forgot". The embargo on parliamentary discussion was therefore to be extended to general discussion of TR in the country. This was very successful. By the time More and Vergil wrote, just one generation later, the identity of EIV's first wife had been quite forgotten.

I wrote:

The Year Book makes it clear that the Act of Attainder attainting "Richard Duke of Gloucester" and his followers for opposing Henry in arms on 21st & 22nd August was passed *before* both the Act settling the crown on Henry VII *and* the repeal of TR,

I correct myself:

Sorry, I was all knotted up - sometimes Yahoo shriks the box on me so I can barely see more thn one line at a time. What I meant to write was:-

"The Year Book makes it clear that the Act of Attainder attainting "Richard Duke of Gloucester" and his followers for opposing Henry in arms on 21st & 22nd August *and* the Act settling the crown on Henry VII were both passed "before* the repeal of TR.

Marie

Kathryn wrote;

"I am a bit confused by the fact that if TR declared and upheld Richard's right to the throne, and everyone seemed to be in agreement about this, how Henry could claim the throne himself when he should be classified/treated as a traitor"

Marie replies

Well, if it were as simple as everyone obeying the parliamentary settlement of the last person to sit on the throne there would have been no Wars of the Roses. The essential thing to remember is that HT put himself forward as the heir of Lancaster, the rightness of his claim demonstrated by God's decision to give him the victory at Bosworth, and so he did not hold with the idea that the House of York had a superior claim at all. For him, TR was a sideshow, part of a Yorkist in-house squabble. It may have suited him better to leave it alone as it would be some sort of bar to Edward V and his brother should either of them ever turn up.

Of course, we know very little at all about behind-the-scenes debates. Perhaps Henry really wanted the whole proceedings of Richard's parliament dumped, as Edward IV had done with the legislation of Henry VI's Re-adeption parliament and as Henry was to do with the proceedings of the Irish parliament of 1487 that had recognised Edward Earl of Warwick as king. The notice in the Year Book indicates that he had at least wanted to remove TR from the rolls without going through the process of repeal but encountered too much resistance.

Kathryn wrote:

I still think anyone who was anyone would have supported Richard and that Henry was given his victory by traitors after their own ends not by God.People had to accept Henry's victory after the battle and Henry had carte blanche to do or say what he wanted one way or the other.I don't know a lot about Henry VII and his reign in depth but he wasn't popular by the end of it and neither was his son Henry VIII. At least Henry VIII thought he'd achieved what he wanted,a son to carry on the dynasty, but I don't think Henry VII thought the same.
I'm not that good on Richard II but I did feel he was trying to get rid of trouble in the shape of Bolingbrook who was eventually put on the throne by the rest of the nobles who didn't want their powers curtailed either.Things still didn't work with absolute monarchy.But Richard did hold the promise of a good reign and it was cruelly cut short

Marie replies:

I take your point, but we're really discussing what Henry VII felt about it all; know thine enemy and all that. In fact, HT was in a total twist because he daren't actually condemn Edward IV as a usurper so he was very fudgy on that subject.

Of course *I* don't believe that Richard's defeat at Bosworth was divine judgement, but I wouldn't underestimate the strength of the belief in divine intervention in the 15th century. Sadly, I suspect there would have been quite a few people who were superstitiously impressed by the way Henry and his wee band of mercenaries and Welsh defeated Richard's great army, and by the revelation that Richard had had a spinal "deformity". Yes, Henry got very unpopular, but his sheer ability to hang on to power was still impressive to the medieval mindset. There's a document from late in the reign snitching on someone trying and failing to drum up support for regime change: his would-be recruits were convinced that God had placed HVII over the country by way of a punishment and so they had no option but to submit to the divine will and sit it out.

Kathryn wrote:

Hi Marie,Thank you for your reply and all the additional information,I'm sorry if I have been coming at this from a different perspective.Henry would obviously be very pleased that he was King. He appears to have been closely counselled by his mother in all things throughout his life and presumably they wanted to get rid of TR and anything else or anybody who would prove a threat to them and it continued throughout the Tudor Dynasty.

Marie replies:

That's not actually my take on it, as I set out in my previous post. Henry had successfully got bills through parliament conferring the crown on him and his heirs in perpetuity, and attainting Richard of treason, without the awkward business of repealing TR. Repealing the Act in the normal way would be very awkward for Henry if there were any evidence for Edward IV having even been involved with Eleanor Butler, and repealing it in any way at all would have the added consequence of legitimising Edward V and his brother should they still be alive - and all their sisters of course. If Henry didn't marry Elizabeth - and it seems he was attempting to avoid doing so - this would not be in his interests at all. It was only after Parliament had forced him to go ahead and honour his promise to marry Elizabeth that the repeal of TR was at last discussed with the justices and then implemented in this furtive and rather despotic manner.

The repeal of TR had, in my view, everything to do with Parliament's demands in relation to Elizabeth of York and nothing to do with Henry's concerns for the rightness of his own title, which in fact it threatened (hence the clause stuck in to the Act of Repeal stating that said Act was to be in no way prejudicial to the Act settling the crown on him).

Kathryn wrote:

Hi Marie,Thank you for your reply and all the additional information,I'm sorry if I have been coming at this from a different perspective.Henry would obviously be very pleased that he was King. He appears to have been closely counselled by his mother in all things throughout his life and presumably they wanted to get rid of TR and anything else or anybody who would prove a threat to them and it continued throughout the Tudor Dynasty.

Marie replies:

That's not actually my take on it, as I set out in my previous post. Henry had successfully got bills through parliament conferring the crown on him and his heirs in perpetuity, and attainting Richard of treason, without the awkward business of repealing TR. Repealing the Act in the normal way would be very awkward for Henry if there were any evidence for Edward IV having even been involved with Eleanor Butler, and repealing it in any way at all would have the added consequence of legitimising Edward V and his brother should they still be alive - and all their sisters of course. If Henry didn't marry Elizabeth - and it seems he was attempting to avoid doing so - this would not be in his interests at all. It was only after Parliament had forced him to go ahead and honour his promise to marry Elizabeth that the repeal of TR was at last discussed with the justices and then implemented in this furtive and rather despotic manner. 

The repeal of TR had, in my view, everything to do with Parliament's demands in relation to Elizabeth of York and nothing to do with Henry's concerns for the rightness of his own title, which in fact it threatened (hence the clause stuck in to the Act of Repeal stating that said Act was to be in no way prejudicial to the Act settling the crown on him).

David wrote;

I think someone has already suggested that everyone who is making a great fuss about TR should read the text of the original act itself. Because it does clear up quite a lot of questions.
The act TR itself actually states that no evidence is to be presented, so it is quite useless speculating about what the evidence actually was. Because the only evidence of the evidence we have is TR and that says that none will be presented.

Marie replies:

This is me scratching my head. I don't recall anybody saying this was in TR; the only document that states there is to be no discussion or rehearsal is the Year Book of 1 Henry VII. I've looked again at the text of TR to be sure I hadn't missed this, but as I thought the only reference that comes anywhere near what you claim is in relation merely to the popular belief that Elizabeth and her mother had brought about the marriage by witchraft; TR does not rely on this as the main plank of the bastardisation but merely acknowledges it and says it might be investigated in the future:

"And here also we considre howe the said pretensed marriage, betwitx the above named King Edward the Elizabeth Grey, was made ... by sorcerie and wiche-crafte, committed by the said Elizabeth and her moder, Jacquett Duchess of Bedford, as the common opinion of the people and the publique voice and fame is through all this land; and hereafter, if and as the case shall require, shall bee proved sufficiently intyme and place convenient."

It might be helpful from here on in if we all actually quote docs when citing them in evidence - I'll try to do this myself.

Marie

As Tracy Bryce states in her (his?) article, "It Is Only by Chance that Titulus Regius Survived, " "This sentence is significant, because it suggests that the matter of the late king's invalid marriage was to be more thoroughly demonstrated, admitting that here and now was not the place to do it. It does not preclude some future ecclesiastical examination into the pre-contract, and hints that there is more to this issue than is prudent to discuss here."

http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Titulus%20Regius.htm#_ftnref3

In other words, the Three Estates didn't include evidence in their petition, but that does not mean that they did not have evidence or that it was not presented to Parliament before the petition was given the force of law by Parliament.

If this line isn't the one you're referring to, please quote the correct line. Thanks.

Sorry about the font glitches, which result from cutting and pasting.

Carol

Carol answered David:

I think you may be misreading Titulus Regius. If you're referring to the line that reads (in modern English), "if and as the case shall require, shall be proved sufficiently in time and place convenient," that line (like most of TR) comes from the petition presented to Richard by the Three Estates in June 1483 quoted within TR and forming most of its content.

Marie:

Quite so. But, as I said in my own response to David, the above statement relates only to the accusation that the Woodvilles had procured the marriage by witchcraft. Since no similar statement is made with regard to the precontract I would presume that evidence judged at the time as satisfactory must have been presented to the Council and the quasi-parliament that recognised Richard as king in 1483.

Hi David, Sorry I was under the impression that they cooped themselves up for several weeks after he became the king so MB could give him the lowdown on everyone and that they consulted regularly together.She was supposed to have walked less than one pace behind Elizabeth of York once Elizabeth was made Queen.MB and Henry VII both kept a close rein on the future Henry VIII once he became heir apparent and I don't think they had a happy relationship with him or vice versa.Henry VIII seemed to have had a good relationship with his mother and seems to have been trying to replicate this happy part of his life early on in his marital life,that and provide a heir to continue the Tudor dynasty.

Best wishes
Kathryn

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Kathryn,
> Just to clarify, that until Bosworth, Henry hardly ever even met his mother, let alone accepted her advice.
>
> I think someone has already suggested that everyone who is making a great fuss about TR should read the text of the original act itself. Because it does clear up quite a lot of questions.
>
> The act TR itself actually states that no evidence is to be presented, so it is quite useless speculating about what the evidence actually was. Because the only evidence of the evidence we have is TR and that says that none will be presented.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>

Carol earlier:

"I think you may be misreading Titulus Regius. If you're referring to the line that reads (in modern English), "if and as the case shall require, shall be proved sufficiently in time and place convenient," that line (like most of TR) comes from the petition presented to Richard by the Three Estates in June 1483 quoted within TR and forming most of its content."

Marie responded:

Quite so. But, as I said in my own response to David, the above statement relates only to the accusation that the Woodvilles had procured the marriage by witchcraft. Since no similar statement is made with regard to the precontract I would presume that evidence judged at the time as satisfactory must have been presented to the Council and the quasi-parliament that recognised Richard as king in 1483."

Carol again:

Right. Sorry about that! It's unfortunate that it's so hard to follow threads with this frustrating new format. If I'd known about your post, I wouldn't have sent mine. I do wonder, though, if the line we both quoted is the one David had in mind (and, apparently, misinterpreted).

Carol

My view (and it is just my view) is that all this agonising over the repeal of TR is a red herring. The repeal had one reason - to make H7 a legitimate king, even though he'd taken the throne by conquest. I doubt he cared much about the legitimacy of Edward's sons and, as I said earlier, by default making them legitimate could and did rebound. Henry had killed an annointed king - even Henry IV and Edward IV had not dared to do that openly (remember Richard II's speech in Shakespeare). The only way he could set the record straight with this was to prove that Richard, though annointed, was a usurper. And that probably helped to salve his own conscience, though there may have been times, like the death of his heir and wife, when he wondered if he had indeed triggered some divine curse. As for Stillington, we know from his youth that he was not beyond going straight to the Pope about all this. That would be just what Henry didn't want, so yet another reason to try to do something about him. H.

Sandra if you get this twice it's because Yahoo is driving me bonkers! I think Henry was a lonely man who fell in love with his charismatic wife almost despite her background. Penn's description of how he withdrew on her death shows someone who was gutted. He also descibes how she made H reclaim some of his gifts to ambassadors, because she had treasured them. The fact that he actually did this, and paid her gambling debts, says to me he did indeed love her. Whether she loved him is of course an entirely different thing. How very difficult it must have been living in the same place where she had had such happy times with her adoring father and her uncle. And beneath it all, Henry must have know that too. I think the Crown brought him little joy. H

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 10:52, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
It's my view too, Hilary. Henry saw himself as king by right of conquest, and didn't like having to marry Elizabeth of York. Promising to marry her was useful for gathering Yorkist support, but when push came to shove, he really had to be shoved. She can't have liked that, and as she and her sisters never spoke out against Richard, I cannot help concluding that her relationship with Henry was always a bit tricky. When she died, I would love to know what his collapse and retreat' was really about. Was it grief? Or simply shock? He was not a happy chappy throughout his reign, and was probably relieved to eventually go to his Maker. But just look what succeeded him. How Richard can be called a monster I do not know. Henry VIII was a Hydra. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:18 AM To: Subject: Re: Re : Re: RE: "Translation" of the Repeal of Titulus Regius My view (and it is just my view) is that all this agonising over the repeal of TR is a red herring. The repeal had one reason - to make H7 a legitimate king, even though he'd taken the throne by conquest. I doubt he cared much about the legitimacy of Edward's sons and, as I said earlier, by default making them legitimate could and did rebound. Henry had killed an annointed king - even Henry IV and Edward IV had not dared to do that openly (remember Richard II's speech in Shakespeare). The only way he could set the record straight with this was to prove that Richard, though annointed, was a usurper. And that probably helped to salve his own conscience, though there may have been times, like the death of his heir and wife, when he wondered if he had indeed triggered some divine curse. As for Stillington, we know from his youth that he was not beyond going straight to the Pope about all this. That would be just what Henry didn't want, so yet another reason to try to do something about him. H.

Hilary wrote:
Actually to be fair David, Jones and Underwood say that Henry spent a fortnight with his mother at Guildford after Bosworth planning strategy. Don't underestimate her - her intellect was formidable and her family connections used subtly would underpin the whole Tudor dynasty. That's the difference between her and EW - EW brashly advanced her family, MB used patronage and family to slowly creep into the fabric of governance, and not necessarily through the nobility. You can see from whence Liz 1 got her formidable intellect. Regards H
Carol responds:

I have no idea what caused this font glitch, but that aside, the attainder of Margaret Beaufort by Richard's Parliament will back up what Hilary is saying here about Margaret's being a force to be contended with (too bad Richard didn't discover it sooner). Here's the first paragraph (untranslated):

"FORASMOCH as Margaret Countesse of Richmond, Mother to the Kyngs greate Rebel and Traytour, Herry Erle of Richemond, hath of late conspired, confedered, and comitted high Treason ayenst oure Soveraigne Lorde the King Richard the Third, in dyvers and sundry wyses, and in especiall in sendyng messages, writyngs and tokens to the said Henry, desiryng, procuryng and stirryng hym by the same, to come into this Roialme, and make Werre ayenst oure said Soveraigne Lorde; to the whiche desyre, procuryng and stirrynge, the said Henry applied hym, as it appereth by experience by hym late shewed in that behalf."

To read the rest, go here: http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/ordering.html

Carol

Hilary wrote:
Sandra if you get this twice it's because Yahoo is driving me bonkers! I think Henry was a lonely man who fell in love with his charismatic wife almost despite her background. Penn's description of how he withdrew on her death shows someone who was gutted. He also descibes how she made H reclaim some of his gifts to ambassadors, because she had treasured them. The fact that he actually did this, and paid her gambling debts, says to me he did indeed love her. Whether she loved him is of course an entirely different thing. How very difficult it must have been living in the same place where she had had such happy times with her adoring father and her uncle. And beneath it all, Henry must have know that too. I think the Crown brought him little joy. H
Carol responds:

Just wondering if you're familiar with this painting, which apparently shows Henry VII calmly receiving a book while his daughters sit on the floor beside the empty bed of their dead mother and eleven-year-old Prince Henry (the future tyrant Henry VIII) weeps. If it's authentic and depicts what it seems to depict, it speaks volumes about Henry VII's attitude toward his wife and children, especially Henry (Arthur having already died): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20003806

Carol
On Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 10:52, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
It's my view too, Hilary. Henry saw himself as king by right of conquest, and didn't like having to marry Elizabeth of York. Promising to marry her was useful for gathering Yorkist support, but when push came to shove, he really had to be shoved. She can't have liked that, and as she and her sisters never spoke out against Richard, I cannot help concluding that her relationship with Henry was always a bit tricky. When she died, I would love to know what his collapse and retreat' was really about. Was it grief? Or simply shock? He was not a happy chappy throughout his reign, and was probably relieved to eventually go to his Maker. But just look what succeeded him. How Richard can be called a monster I do not know. Henry VIII was a Hydra. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:18 AM To: Subject: Re: Re : Re: RE: "Translation" of the Repeal of Titulus Regius My view (and it is just my view) is that all this agonising over the repeal of TR is a red herring. The repeal had one reason - to make H7 a legitimate king, even though he'd taken the throne by conquest. I doubt he cared much about the legitimacy of Edward's sons and, as I said earlier, by default making them legitimate could and did rebound. Henry had killed an annointed king - even Henry IV and Edward IV had not dared to do that openly (remember Richard II's speech in Shakespeare). The only way he could set the record straight with this was to prove that Richard, though annointed, was a usurper. And that probably helped to salve his own conscience, though there may have been times, like the death of his heir and wife, when he wondered if he had indeed triggered some divine curse. As for Stillington, we know from his youth that he was not beyond going straight to the Pope about all this. That would be just what Henry didn't want, so yet another reason to try to do something about him. H.

Sandra wrote:

"No, I didn't know about this painting. Thank you, Carol. I've added it to my (now huge) file of illustrations. How fascinating. Who do you think the three gentlemen together on the right might be? The one with fair/reddish hair appears to have his arms around the shoulders of the other two, and they are all looking down very fondly/sadly/sympathetically. And surely Henry is depicted with a little centre-of-the-chin beard? No, it has to be a smudge. Yes?" Carol responds:

I don't know whether the dark spot is a smudge or a goatee, but given the fashions of the time, I'd guess it's a smudge. I don't see the sympathy--certainly none for the deprived children in the background--only smiles or smirks. I find it disturbing, actually.

Carol

A couple of thoughts from someone who was almost an art major--you are correct that medieval art meant to illustrate an event or convey a message often used multiple scenes fitted into the same non-realistic frame or space (almost like modern "graphic novels"do). It was also characteristic for subsidiary figures to show emotion while main figures, *especially* if they were royal/noble, were conventionally shown as almost impassive. The children in the "insert" were understood as conveying the grief (real or conventional) of the King also.

Anne

A couple of thoughts from someone who was almost an art major--you are correct that medieval art meant to illustrate an event or convey a message often used multiple scenes fitted into the same non-realistic frame or space (almost like modern "graphic novels"do). It was also characteristic for subsidiary figures to show emotion while main figures, *especially* if they were royal/noble, were conventionally shown as almost impassive. The children in the "insert" were understood as conveying the grief (real or conventional) of the King also.

Anne

Kathryn again
Henry V11 is also perhaps symbolising Richard 11 and Edmund Tudor, Bolingbroke?Maybe Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror? Has anyone any ideas as to what the Princesses are holding? Maybe a casket/tomb?

--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Anne ,
> I should have mentioned that the two Princesses, Margaret and Mary, were representing themselves and the women and daughters of the family too
> (Sorry if these should have be posted after Sandra's reply}
> Kathryn x
>
>
> --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Anne for this post.
> > I have been thinking about this all night.Yes I think Henry V111 is representing both himself and his father and those of the onlookers.I kept thinking what the significance could be regarding the book cover. Could it represent the star chamber? If Henry realised by his own losses what Richard and his family had been through the picture may be representing Henry reconciling with the York part of his family and he is actually giving the book to Richard and the men watching are Richard's father, Edward and George and maybe Henry's father Edmund,representing the Lancastrian family and that is why they are all smiling.
> > Kathryn x
> >
> >
> > --- In , <friedaofalsace@> wrote:
> > >
> > > A couple of thoughts from someone who was almost an art major--you are correct that medieval art meant to illustrate an event or convey a message often used multiple scenes fitted into the same non-realistic frame or space (almost like modern "graphic novels"do). It was also characteristic for subsidiary figures to show emotion while main figures, *especially* if they were royal/noble, were conventionally shown as almost impassive. The children in the "insert" were understood as conveying the grief (real or conventional) of the King also.
> > >
> > >
> > > Anne
> > >
> >
>

Kathryn again
I meant whoever may have been in the frame on the floor.It may refer to the Queens Anne and Elizabeth's resurrection in Christ? x

--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Sandra,
> Thanks for your reply.Yes they could be toy dolls beds or abacus.Not sure what the the grey things are on the floor,they may be a detatched head and body frame for hanging a corpse on a gibbet? Symbolising that they have risen like Christ? The girl in the pink/salmon/coral dress echoes the colour of Richard's gown so she maybe representing Anne and the girl in grey echoes that of Henry V11 so she could be representing Elizabeth of York.Perhaps Henry V111's grief may be related that of Edward 1V I don't know.
> Kathryn x
>
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" x<sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > I can’t think what the girls are holding, Kathryn. If it were modern, I’d think they were toy dolls’ beds, but perhaps it is a frame for a game something like an abacus? And what are those grey things lying on the floor by the steps? And would a pink/salmon/coral dress be considered suitable? In fact, the more I look, the more it seems there is not much sign of mourning. The girls wear black hoods and big Henry wears something long, loose and grey. Otherwise...nothing. Isn’t this odd if it is supposedly so close to the queen’s death that a point has to be made if the little Henry’s grief?
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: kathryng56@
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:43 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: "Translation" of the Repeal of Titulus Regius
> >
> >
> >
> > Kathryn again
> > Henry V11 is also perhaps symbolising Richard 11 and Edmund Tudor, Bolingbroke?Maybe Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror? Has anyone any ideas as to what the Princesses are holding? Maybe a casket/tomb?
> >
> > --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Anne ,
> > > I should have mentioned that the two Princesses, Margaret and Mary, were representing themselves and the women and daughters of the family too
> > > (Sorry if these should have be posted after Sandra's reply}
> > > Kathryn x
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Anne for this post.
> > > > I have been thinking about this all night.Yes I think Henry V111 is representing both himself and his father and those of the onlookers.I kept thinking what the significance could be regarding the book cover. Could it represent the star chamber? If Henry realised by his own losses what Richard and his family had been through the picture may be representing Henry reconciling with the York part of his family and he is actually giving the book to Richard and the men watching are Richard's father, Edward and George and maybe Henry's father Edmund,representing the Lancastrian family and that is why they are all smiling.
> > > > Kathryn x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , <friedaofalsace@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > A couple of thoughts from someone who was almost an art major--you are correct that medieval art meant to illustrate an event or convey a message often used multiple scenes fitted into the same non-realistic frame or space (almost like modern "graphic novels"do). It was also characteristic for subsidiary figures to show emotion while main figures, *especially* if they were royal/noble, were conventionally shown as almost impassive. The children in the "insert" were understood as conveying the grief (real or conventional) of the King also.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anne
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Sandra,
Thanks for all your messages.....I'm not sure if mine have made any sense of the painting.Hopefully speak soon.
Kathryn x

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Lawks, I'm lost now. I think I'll make a dignified exit. Medieval symbolism is not my forte, that's for sure.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: kathryng56@...
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:42 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: "Translation" of the Repeal of Titulus Regius
>
>
> Kathryn again
> I meant whoever may have been in the frame on the floor.It may refer to the Queens Anne and Elizabeth's resurrection in Christ? x
>
> --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sandra,
> > Thanks for your reply.Yes they could be toy dolls beds or abacus.Not sure what the the grey things are on the floor,they may be a detatched head and body frame for hanging a corpse on a gibbet? Symbolising that they have risen like Christ? The girl in the pink/salmon/coral dress echoes the colour of Richard's gown so she maybe representing Anne and the girl in grey echoes that of Henry V11 so she could be representing Elizabeth of York.Perhaps Henry V111's grief may be related that of Edward 1V I don't know.
> > Kathryn x
> >
> >
> > --- In , "SandraMachin" x<sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I can’t think what the girls are holding, Kathryn. If it were modern, I’d think they were toy dolls’ beds, but perhaps it is a frame for a game something like an abacus? And what are those grey things lying on the floor by the steps? And would a pink/salmon/coral dress be considered suitable? In fact, the more I look, the more it seems there is not much sign of mourning. The girls wear black hoods and big Henry wears something long, loose and grey. Otherwise...nothing. Isn’t this odd if it is supposedly so close to the queen’s death that a point has to be made if the little Henry’s grief?
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > >
> > > From: kathryng56@
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:43 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: RE: "Translation" of the Repeal of Titulus Regius
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Kathryn again
> > > Henry V11 is also perhaps symbolising Richard 11 and Edmund Tudor, Bolingbroke?Maybe Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror? Has anyone any ideas as to what the Princesses are holding? Maybe a casket/tomb?
> > >
> > > --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Anne ,
> > > > I should have mentioned that the two Princesses, Margaret and Mary, were representing themselves and the women and daughters of the family too
> > > > (Sorry if these should have be posted after Sandra's reply}
> > > > Kathryn x
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Anne for this post.
> > > > > I have been thinking about this all night.Yes I think Henry V111 is representing both himself and his father and those of the onlookers.I kept thinking what the significance could be regarding the book cover. Could it represent the star chamber? If Henry realised by his own losses what Richard and his family had been through the picture may be representing Henry reconciling with the York part of his family and he is actually giving the book to Richard and the men watching are Richard's father, Edward and George and maybe Henry's father Edmund,representing the Lancastrian family and that is why they are all smiling.
> > > > > Kathryn x
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , <friedaofalsace@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A couple of thoughts from someone who was almost an art major--you are correct that medieval art meant to illustrate an event or convey a message often used multiple scenes fitted into the same non-realistic frame or space (almost like modern "graphic novels"do). It was also characteristic for subsidiary figures to show emotion while main figures, *especially* if they were royal/noble, were conventionally shown as almost impassive. The children in the "insert" were understood as conveying the grief (real or conventional) of the King also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anne
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Wednesday wrote:
Lately I've been reading about decadent Roman emperors. They were worse than Hydras, but medieval scholars don't deal with them and so Richard Richard isn't compared against them. A wider historical perspective can be a lovely thing.

Carol responds:

Totally off topic, but does anyone know whether King Herod, to whom the Richard of Tudor myth is often compared, really ordered the "slaughter of the innocents"? I don't want to get into a religious or OT discussion. I'm just wondering if there's any historical evidence to back up that story, which Richard himself surely believed to be true.

Carol

A couple of thoughts from someone who was almost an art major--you are correct that medieval art meant to illustrate an event or convey a message often used multiple scenes fitted into the same non-realistic frame or space (almost like modern "graphic novels"do). It was also characteristic for subsidiary figures to show emotion while main figures, *especially* if they were royal/noble, were conventionally shown as almost impassive. The children in the "insert" were understood as conveying the grief (real or conventional) of the King also.

Carol responds:

I think you're responding to me but can't be sure since you didn't quote the message you're responding to (or Yahoo ate it). At any rate, thank you for your response. I take it that the painting tells of nothing of Henry VII's feelings (though I suspect that the depiction of Prince Henry's grief is based on life).

One thing is certain. Assertions that the Middle Ages ended with Richard's death at Bosworth are clearly false. This painting shows the same conventions in some ways as other depictions of medieval monarchs receiving manuscripts, and any attempts to identify the figures surrounding Henry may be futile. He certainly didn't have a coterie of bosom friends. None looks old enough to be Uncle Jasper, and none is dressed as a priest like Morton.

Carol

Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents, although Herod was guilty of many brutal acts including the killing of his wife and two of his sons, no other source from the period refers to the massacre.[32] Since Bethlehem was a small village, the number of male children under the age of two might not exceed 20, and this may be the reason for the lack of other sources for this history.[33] Modern biographers of Herod tend to doubt the event took place.[34]

"Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents, although Herod was guilty of many brutal acts including the killing of his wife and two of his sons, no other source from the period refers to the massacre.[32] Since Bethlehem was a small village, the number of male children under the age of two might not exceed 20, and this may be the reason for the lack of other sources for this history.[33] Modern biographers of Herod tend to doubt the event took place.[34]"

Jan wrote:

Actually to be fair David, Jones and Underwood say that Henry spent a fortnight with his mother at Guildford after Bosworth planning strategy. Don't underestimate her - her intellect was formidable and her family connections used subtly would underpin the whole Tudor dynasty. That's the difference between her and EW - EW brashly advanced her family, MB used patronage and family to slowly creep into the fabric of governance, and not necessarily through the nobility. You can see from whence Liz 1 got her formidable intellect.  Regards  H

On Monday, 27 January 2014, 20:05, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
  Kathryn,
Henry didn't need to be cooped up with MB after he became king, because he had around 500 of the leading gentry from the rebellious southern counties in Vannes, Brittany. Apparently, they had plenty of time to give him the information about who was doing what in England, who to trust and how things should be.

So it should be no surprise at all that Stillington was arrested so quickly.

Kind regards
David
From: kathryng56@... <kathryng56@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: RE: "Translation" of the Repeal of Titulus Regius
Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2014 5:10:23 PM

  Hi David, Sorry I was under the impression that they cooped themselves up for several weeks after he became the king so MB could give him the lowdown on everyone and that they consulted regularly together.She was supposed to have walked less than one pace behind Elizabeth of York once Elizabeth was made Queen.MB and Henry VII both kept a close rein on the future Henry VIII once he became heir apparent and I don't think they had a happy relationship with him or vice versa.Henry VIII seemed to have had a good relationship with his mother and seems to have been trying to replicate this happy part of his life early on in his marital life,that and provide a heir to continue the Tudor dynasty.

Best wishes
Kathryn

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Kathryn,
> Just to clarify, that until Bosworth, Henry hardly ever even met his mother, let alone accepted her advice.
>
> I think someone has already suggested that everyone who is making a great fuss about TR should read the text of the original act itself. Because it does clear up quite a lot of questions.
>
> The act TR itself actually states that no evidence is to be presented, so it is quite useless speculating about what the evidence actually was. Because the only evidence of the evidence we have is TR and that says that none will be presented.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>

Hi Hilary,
I don't think that I said that Henry and his formidable mother did not get together. My argument was that it was not necessary to explain Henry's actions immediately after Bosworth. It seems the Vannes rebels had little else to do but put the world to rights.

Kind regards
David From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: "Translation" of the Repeal of Titulus Regius
Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 12:53:32 PM

Actually to be fair David, Jones and Underwood say that Henry spent a fortnight with his mother at Guildford after Bosworth planning strategy. Don't underestimate her - her intellect was formidable and her family connections used subtly would underpin the whole Tudor dynasty. That's the difference between her and EW - EW brashly advanced her family, MB used patronage and family to slowly creep into the fabric of governance, and not necessarily through the nobility. You can see from whence Liz 1 got her formidable intellect. Regards H

On Monday, 27 January 2014, 20:05, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Kathryn,
Henry didn't need to be cooped up with MB after he became king, because he had around 500 of the leading gentry from the rebellious southern counties in Vannes, Brittany. Apparently, they had plenty of time to give him the information about who was doing what in England, who to trust and how things should be.

So it should be no surprise at all that Stillington was arrested so quickly.

Kind regards
David From: kathryng56@... <kathryng56@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: RE: "Translation" of the Repeal of Titulus Regius
Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2014 5:10:23 PM

Hi David, Sorry I was under the impression that they cooped themselves up for several weeks after he became the king so MB could give him the lowdown on everyone and that they consulted regularly together.She was supposed to have walked less than one pace behind Elizabeth of York once Elizabeth was made Queen.MB and Henry VII both kept a close rein on the future Henry VIII once he became heir apparent and I don't think they had a happy relationship with him or vice versa.Henry VIII seemed to have had a good relationship with his mother and seems to have been trying to replicate this happy part of his life early on in his marital life,that and provide a heir to continue the Tudor dynasty.

Best wishes
Kathryn

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Kathryn,
> Just to clarify, that until Bosworth, Henry hardly ever even met his mother, let alone accepted her advice.
>
> I think someone has already suggested that everyone who is making a great fuss about TR should read the text of the original act itself. Because it does clear up quite a lot of questions.
>
> The act TR itself actually states that no evidence is to be presented, so it is quite useless speculating about what the evidence actually was. Because the only evidence of the evidence we have is TR and that says that none will be presented.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>

Hidden symbolism was very characteristic of Northern art in the late Middle Ages/early Renaissance--BUT all the examples I've ever seen are Netherlandish/German. England was just not a center of innovation in the visual arts (sorry). Presentation pictures in manuscripts were conventional and this one is also done in a style well out of date for HVII's period. It's probably a mistake to look for any double or hidden meanings. The "stars" on the cover almost certainly represent gems, embossing or other ornamentation. Books were status symbols in an age of display.

A presentation picture memorializes the occasion and the giver, connecting something general (a Bible, for example) to a particular person and time. In this case the book was a "passionel" (sp?), a work on suffering and salvation, and it seems logical to me that the presentation picture would include a reference to the specific bereavement of the recipient honored by the gift. As for the figures on the right, they simply have to be the donor and his family/supporters. But apparently we don't know who they are.

Anne

Apologies for not signing my other post today. It's 1AM here in the States and I guess my trigger finger slipped.

Hi, sorry David, I thought you meant he didn't need his mother's advice and that that of others would be more up to date. I think you'll find that she and uncle Jasper were perhaps the only people he would ever trust in his life. As for their putting the world to right, that was again mainly to be left to MB and her contingent - Morton, Bray and Bray's friends Empson and the Sutton Dudleys. Even Henry's chroniclers, Vergil and Andre didn't get on and drove him mad. So far my expoloration of the Vannes lot reveals quite a few professional traitors - the Courtenays, Hungerfords, Welles whom Edward had had to cull in the early 1470s. Hungerford's son was to end up on Tower Green (same day as Cromwell) under H8, so not much enlightenment there. And I may even have found a reason for the puzzling enlistment of Sir Richard Haute - he was married to an MB relative.  As for horrified Edwardian Yorkists, which was the reason for my quest, I've yet to find one. I don't count Dorset - he had his own agenda and had been feuding with others in the Midlands for years.  Regards   H

On Friday, 31 January 2014, 4:00, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
  David Durose wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I don't think that I said that Henry and his formidable mother did not get together. My argument was that it was not necessary to explain Henry's actions immediately after Bosworth. It seems the Vannes rebels had little else to do but put the world to rights.

Carol responds:

In their view, possibly. I'm afraid that the majority of members of a Richard III forum would hold a different view--that Richard was trying to do exactly that, having already made a peace/marriage treaty with Scotland, formed alliances with Spain and Portugal, and passed the most enlightened legislation that England had seen for many years. That a few diehard Lancastrians, a few Woodville adherents, and some 500-odd Edwardian Yorkists didn't appreciate his efforts does not mean that those efforts did not exist. Given time, he would have united the houses of York and Lancaster more truly than Henry did or could.

Perhaps Henry's supporters of all stripes, not just the Vanned contingent, thought that by repealing Titulus Regius and forcing Henry to marry Elizabeth of York, ostensibly but not really joining the houses of Lancaster and York, they were "putting the world to rights. Instead, they got a backdated reign in which Parliament was forced to attaint men who fought for an anointed king and reinstituted benevolences. I wouldn't call imprisoning the ten-year-old Earl of Warwick "putting the world to rights," either. I hope that Henry's supporters were happy with their king "by right of conquest." It doesn't appear that the rest of his subjects were. Sir Thomas More, of all people, rejoiced when he died: "This day is the [end] of our slavery, the beginning of our freedom, the end of sadness, the source of joy," to quote the Yale University Press translation http://thomasmorestudies.org/docs/Mores_1509_Coronation_Ode.pdf That his celebration of the coronation of Henry VIII proved ironic does not undo his view of Henry VII as a tyrant (though it does cast a strange light on his "History" of Richard III and open his motives to question).

Sorry. Straying from the topic as usual. I just found "putting things to rights" an odd and somewhat provocative description of Tudor supporters' motives given that this is a Richard III Society forum.

Carol

Absolutely agree Carol. This country would be a much better place if Richard had won Bosworth. Recently some archaeologists found the remains of Blanche Mortimer in Much Marcle. She was, I think, the daughter of Roger Mortimer who overthrew Edward II. All the articles described Roger as a traitor, which he most definitely was, however, Tudor is never referred to as a traitor despite the fact that he caused an anointed King to die in battle and visited 118 years of misery on this country.

"Hidden symbolism was very characteristic of Northern art in the late Middle Ages/early Renaissance--BUT all the examples I've ever seen are Netherlandish/German. England was just not a center of innovation in the visual arts (sorry). Presentation pictures in manuscripts were conventional and this one is also done in a style well out of date for HVII's period. It's probably a mistake to look for any double or hidden meanings. The "stars" on the cover almost certainly represent gems, embossing or other ornamentation. Books were status symbols in an age of display.

"A presentation picture memorializes the occasion and the giver, connecting something general (a Bible, for example) to a particular person and time. In this case the book was a "passionel" (sp?), a work on suffering and salvation, and it seems logical to me that the presentation picture would include a reference to the specific bereavement of the recipient honored by the gift. As for the figures on the right, they simply have to be the donor and his family/supporters. But apparently we don't know who they are."