Usurper or elected sovereign

I very rarely post on the forum, but I certainly follow it - so I thought
I'd post a link to a recent article I've written. I have read so many
articles across the net and in newspapers lately which automatically
describe Richard as a usurper who 'seized' the throne - even when they seem
to be in support of his position. So I have written a fairly comprehensive
article which I think goes to the heart of the situation. This is posted
both on the NSW Australian website, and also on my own blog.

http://www.bgdenvil.com/

and
http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/2014/09/richard-iii-elected-monarch-or-usur
per/

I'd love opinions.

Thanks so much, Barbara



cid:[email protected]

It looks good to me, Barbara. I don't have any complaints over the information contained, but then, I'm still a neophyte in this field and likely will remain so. The only thing I'd do is tweak a few grammar and syntax issues, but some may not be actual issues as opposed to differences between American and Australian versions of English.

Have you read JAH's more recent publications, particularly Royal Marriage Secrets? He discusses the fact that clandestine marriages were quite the thing in medieval times and for some centuries afterward; in fact, Henry Tudor/Beaufort wouldn't have existed if not for at least one and possibly two clandestine weddings (or a clandestine wedding and/or an adultery) in the six or so decades immediately before his birth. This is the answer to those who say "Oh, this could never have happened!" Yes, it could -- and did, quite often. Even after the church took steps to crack down on it.

Tamara


---In , <barbaragd@...> wrote :

I very rarely post on the forum, but I certainly follow it - so I thought
I'd post a link to a recent article I've written. I have read so many
articles across the net and in newspapers lately which automatically
describe Richard as a usurper who 'seized' the throne - even when they seem
to be in support of his position. So I have written a fairly comprehensive
article which I think goes to the heart of the situation. This is posted
both on the NSW Australian website, and also on my own blog.

http://www.bgdenvil.com/

and
http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/2014/09/richard-iii-elected-monarch-or-usur
per/

I'd love opinions.

Thanks so much, Barbara



cid:[email protected]

Thanks very much Tamara, it's kind of you to take a look. Yes, I know JAH
and his work, thanks for the suggestion. The so-called clandestine marriage
was probably the most common type amongst the general population, but fairly
rare for kings of course. But it bothers me that the accusation of usurper
is so incredibly common in virtually every article we see these days - just
as if it is an accepted matter of fact. Those journalists who do not know
any of the history themselves, automatically call Richard a usurper. Even
some who know a lot more, still believe he 'seized' the throne. So I
thought I'd write an article based on pure common sense, and hope that one
or two people would see it and embrace the facts.

Of course, everyone on this forum knows the truth - but I wanted to see if
my article did indeed come across convincingly to those of us who know the
truth.

Thanks again, Tamara.

Barbara



cid:[email protected]

Very good article Barbara...I even managed to leave a comment,,,Eileen

Barbara wrote :

"I very rarely post on the forum, but I certainly follow it - so I thought
I'd post a link to a recent article I've written. I have read so many
articles across the net and in newspapers lately which automatically
describe Richard as a usurper who 'seized' the throne - even when they seem
to be in support of his position. So I have written a fairly comprehensive
article which I think goes to the heart of the situation. This is posted
both on the NSW Australian website, and also on my own blog. . . . I'd love opinions."

Carol responds:

Very well written article, Barbara (and I speak as a recently retired copyeditor with a PhD in English), and I admire your motivation for writing the article. I certainly agree that historians and the general public need to reexamine their assumption that Richard was a usurper and stop taking that supposed fact for granted.

I'd like to point out, though, that the second paragraph, which I quote below, is slightly misleading.

"This one original and incontrovertible document dates from 1484. It sets forth in plain language (of the time) the entitlement to the throne of the man crowned Richard III, and states that, after certain facts were brought to light which made it clear that King Edward IV's sons were now considered illegitimate and young Warwick, Clarence's son, was debarred by his father's attainder, Richard, at that time Duke of Gloucester, stood next in line."

It's true that Titulus Regius dates from 1484 and that Richard was Duke of Gloucester when the facts that led to his being chosen as king were brought to light, but he had been king for about five months when Titulus Regius was passed by Parliament. You might want to make it clearer that TR incorporates an earlier petition dating from June 1483 which requests that Richard accept the kingship. In essence, it restates his claim as worded in the petition by the Three Estates and makes it official.

You might also want to quote TR, particularly the passages relating to Richard's good character and other virtues.

Are you sure that Elizabeth Woodville's two sons by Sir John Grey were placed in wardship in the months before Edward acknowledged EW as his wife? I hadn't heard that.

Anyway, these comments are intended as constructive criticism, which I hope you'll recognize as well intentioned. In general, you make some good points, particularly regarding EB's reasons for remaining silent and the Three Estates/Parliament as not being intimidated by the supposedly ambitious and tyrannical Richard. Again, if you quote the relevant passage in TR, this second point may be stronger.

Carol

Carol,

I agree with what you say. Hicks goes to some lengths to establish that TR was essentially the same as the document presented in June 1483.

Would you think - as a PhD in English - that TR can be described as incontrovertible? It seems that there were many people who questioned it in its original form, which led to the petition's being restated as TR in 1484.

I think that the important point that is being left out is that all petitions were worded that way. If you look at the example I posted some time ago from the reign of Henry VI in which he created earldoms for Edmund and Jasper Tudor -

Henry wished to create the earldoms;
Accordingly, parliament drew up a petition in which the great qualities of the king were extolled as were those of his mother;
Parliament requests Henry to create the earldoms.

There is nothing unusual about this format. It does not mean that the three estates had the idea in the first place. I am sure you can come up with other examples.

Kind regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: justcarol67@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Usurper or elected sovereign
Sent: Thu, Sep 11, 2014 7:06:55 PM

 

Barbara wrote :

"I very rarely post on the forum, but I certainly follow it - so I thought
I'd post a link to a recent article I've written. I have read so many
articles across the net and in newspapers lately which automatically
describe Richard as a usurper who 'seized' the throne - even when they seem
to be in support of his position. So I have written a fairly comprehensive
article which I think goes to the heart of the situation. This is posted
both on the NSW Australian website, and also on my own blog. . . . I'd love opinions."

Carol responds:

Very well written article, Barbara (and I speak as a recently retired copyeditor with a PhD in English), and I admire your motivation for writing the article. I certainly agree that historians and the general public need to reexamine their assumption that Richard was a usurper and stop taking that supposed fact for granted.

I'd like to point out, though, that the second paragraph, which I quote below, is slightly misleading.

"This one original and incontrovertible document dates from 1484. It sets forth in plain language (of the time) the entitlement to the throne of the man crowned Richard III, and states that, after certain facts were brought to light which made it clear that King Edward IV's sons were now considered illegitimate and young Warwick, Clarence's son, was debarred by his father's attainder, Richard, at that time Duke of Gloucester, stood next in line."

It's true that Titulus Regius dates from 1484 and that Richard was Duke of Gloucester when the facts that led to his being chosen as king were brought to light, but he had been king for about five months when Titulus Regius was passed by Parliament. You might want to make it clearer that TR incorporates an earlier petition dating from June 1483 which requests that Richard accept the kingship. In essence, it restates his claim as worded in the petition by the Three Estates and makes it official.

You might also want to quote TR, particularly the passages relating to Richard's good character and other virtues.

Are you sure that Elizabeth Woodville's two sons by Sir John Grey were placed in wardship in the months before Edward acknowledged EW as his wife? I hadn't heard that.

Anyway, these comments are intended as constructive criticism, which I hope you'll recognize as well intentioned. In general, you make some good points, particularly regarding EB's reasons for remaining silent and the Three Estates/Parliament as not being intimidated by the supposedly ambitious and tyrannical Richard. Again, if you quote the relevant passage in TR, this second point may be stronger.

Carol



 

David Durose wrote:

"I agree with what you say. Hicks goes to some lengths to establish that TR was essentially the same as the document presented in June 1483. Would you think - as a PhD in English - that TR can be described as incontrovertible? It seems that there were many people who questioned it in its original form, which led to the petition's being restated as TR in 1484. [snip]"

Carol responds:

We don't need Hicks to establish that TR is "essentially the same" as the petition by the Three Estates in 1483. TR *quotes* the petition in full and clearly states that its reason for being as an act of Parliament is to remove any doubts about the legitimacy of the petition based on the Three Estates not being an official Parliament.

As for its being incontrovertible, it would be better to ask someone with a PhD in medieval history, not English! Clearly, Henry's Parliament had no trouble overturning it and *almost* erasing it from history!

But TR was certainly legally binding during Richard's lifetime, and the logic of its arguments, however foreign to us in the twenty-first century, made perfect sense to medieval lawyers and clerics.

Carol