Re: Titulus Regius

Where can you read the actual Titulus Regius? Can you read it online?

Gloria

On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 18:05:55 -0800 (PST) Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@...> writes:
I THOUGHT until I read it that there was nothing to
really learn by reading the Titulus Regius.

It's a piece. The Congressional debates on invading
Iraq (the first time) don't hold a candle to it.

Not only was Edward IV bewitched into marrying
Elizabeth Woodville, but if I read the document right,
ir argues that "Our virgins, our lands and our wives
aren't safe from teh Woodvilles!" At least, that is
who I THINK they're talking about.

At 04:08 PM 10/30/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Where can you read the actual Titulus Regius? Can you read it online?
>

You can indeed. Go to http://www.r3.org/bookcase/ and scroll down until you
find the link to it.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

I'm pretty sure it's among the original documents at
the Richard III Society web site.

I hadn't seen much point in reading it until Google
said it managed to contain the word witchcraft, and
that is how I got to it. I was searching for anything
on accusations against Elizabeth Woodville for
witchcraft. You could get to it by typing Titulus
Regius in Google, probably more easily than searching
the Richard III Society web page for it.

Dora



--- Gloria Harrison <harrison110@...> wrote:
> Where can you read the actual Titulus Regius? Can
> you read it online?
>
> Gloria
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 18:05:55 -0800 (PST) Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@...> writes:
> I THOUGHT until I read it that there was nothing to
> really learn by reading the Titulus Regius.
>
> It's a piece. The Congressional debates on invading
> Iraq (the first time) don't hold a candle to it.
>
> Not only was Edward IV bewitched into marrying
> Elizabeth Woodville, but if I read the document
> right,
> ir argues that "Our virgins, our lands and our wives
> aren't safe from teh Woodvilles!" At least, that is
> who I THINK they're talking about.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

At 05:17 PM 10/31/02 -0800, Dora wrote:

You could get to it by typing Titulus
>Regius in Google, probably more easily than searching
>the Richard III Society web page for it.
>

The Richard III Society/American Branch website has full-text searching. If
you don't feel like going to the URL I provided and scrolling down, you
could use the search.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

I am having to teach a section of Tudor overview re Parliament for A
level, and have given the students TR as a source, plus part of
Henry VII's Act claiming the throne and a source referring to Edward
IV being asked to take the throne. If anyone else knows of any
sources, or feels they could give me any useful ideas on the issue
of the developing powers of Parliament at this time I should be
grateful. Given Parliament claimed they lacked any competence to
adjudicate on the duke of York's claim to the throne in 1460 this
seems to be a very rapid development, with two kings in 3 years
having their accession vindicated by Parliament and the succession
itself determined by Parliament only 50 years later. Does anyone
know of any similar earlier instances of Parliamentary involvement
in the succession?

--- In , "brunild613"
<brunild613@y...> wrote:
> I am having to teach a section of Tudor overview re Parliament for
A
> level, and have given the students TR as a source, plus part of
> Henry VII's Act claiming the throne and a source referring to
Edward
> IV being asked to take the throne. If anyone else knows of any
> sources, or feels they could give me any useful ideas on the issue
> of the developing powers of Parliament at this time I should be
> grateful. Given Parliament claimed they lacked any competence to
> adjudicate on the duke of York's claim to the throne in 1460 this
> seems to be a very rapid development, with two kings in 3 years
> having their accession vindicated by Parliament and the succession
> itself determined by Parliament only 50 years later. Does anyone
> know of any similar earlier instances of Parliamentary involvement
> in the succession?

Well, how about the act of Parliament that legitimated John of
Gaunt's four children by Katherine Swinford -- the "Beaufort
bastards"? That didn't directly affect the succcession of the crown
at the time, but its repercussions and subsequent interpretations
did.

I am obviously still problem ridden here as I posted a reply to this
last night which didn't show! Quite right, thanks, the Beaufort
business is one we use in another context so that's easy enough. I
was wondering about 1399 perhaps or even 1327, if there was anything
at all parallel then?


--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunild613"
> <brunild613@y...> wrote:
> > I am having to teach a section of Tudor overview re Parliament
for
> A
> > level, and have given the students TR as a source, plus part of
> > Henry VII's Act claiming the throne and a source referring to
> Edward
> > IV being asked to take the throne. If anyone else knows of any
> > sources, or feels they could give me any useful ideas on the
issue
> > of the developing powers of Parliament at this time I should be
> > grateful. Given Parliament claimed they lacked any competence to
> > adjudicate on the duke of York's claim to the throne in 1460
this
> > seems to be a very rapid development, with two kings in 3 years
> > having their accession vindicated by Parliament and the
succession
> > itself determined by Parliament only 50 years later. Does anyone
> > know of any similar earlier instances of Parliamentary
involvement
> > in the succession?
>
> Well, how about the act of Parliament that legitimated John of
> Gaunt's four children by Katherine Swinford -- the "Beaufort
> bastards"? That didn't directly affect the succcession of the
crown
> at the time, but its repercussions and subsequent interpretations
> did.

I was just mulling this over: if there had been rumors of Edward
IV's illegitimacy swirling around for years, why wasn't that the
basis of the decision of Parliament to settle the crown on Richard,
rather than the precontract with Eleanor Butler and the illegitimacy
of Edward's sons, which was beside the point if Edward himself was
illegitimate?

Wasit because Edward, while of royal blood (through his mother, if
not his true father) was king by a coup rather than direct lineage?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I was just mulling this over: if there had been rumors of Edward
> IV's illegitimacy swirling around for years, why wasn't that the
> basis of the decision of Parliament to settle the crown on Richard,
> rather than the precontract with Eleanor Butler and the
illegitimacy
> of Edward's sons, which was beside the point if Edward himself was
> illegitimate?
>
> Wasit because Edward, while of royal blood (through his mother, if
> not his true father) was king by a coup rather than direct lineage?
>
> Katy

Remember that Richard's TR was not merely repealed but destroyed, so
it may well have mentioned Edward's possible illegitimacy.
Alternatively, it may have been omitted to spare Cecily's reputation,
to avoid the complexities of the Clarence disputes and because the
pre-contract was a FACT but rumours about a conception in France are
merely rumours.

Of course, Edward IV did claim to be king by direct lineage as the
heir general of Richard II, the Lancastrians (heirs male) being the
usurpers. This is borne out by the genealogy and inheritance law.
Indeed this claim precipitated Cambridge's execution in 1415.

Stephen

--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > I was just mulling this over: if there had been rumors of Edward
> > IV's illegitimacy swirling around for years, why wasn't that the
> > basis of the decision of Parliament to settle the crown on
Richard,
> > rather than the precontract with Eleanor Butler and the
> illegitimacy
> > of Edward's sons, which was beside the point if Edward himself
was
> > illegitimate?
> >
> > Wasit because Edward, while of royal blood (through his mother,
if
> > not his true father) was king by a coup rather than direct
lineage?
> >
> > Katy
>
> Remember that Richard's TR was not merely repealed but destroyed,
so
> it may well have mentioned Edward's possible illegitimacy.
> Alternatively, it may have been omitted to spare Cecily's
reputation,
> to avoid the complexities of the Clarence disputes and because the
> pre-contract was a FACT but rumours about a conception in France
are
> merely rumours.
>
> Of course, Edward IV did claim to be king by direct lineage as the
> heir general of Richard II, the Lancastrians (heirs male) being the
> usurpers. This is borne out by the genealogy and inheritance law.
> Indeed this claim precipitated Cambridge's execution in 1415.
>
> Stephen

One copy did survive, and resurfaced in the 17th century (I think);
otherwise we wouldn't know the real precontract lady was eleanor
Butler and not Lady Lucy. I have the text. It does quite clearly
allude to Edward's illegitimacy, though it doesn't state it outright.
It bases Richard's claim on a number of considerations, dealt with in
the following order:
1) The parlous state of the realm, due to the self-serving
debaucheess who'd been running the show
2) The circumstances of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville,
which were in themselves irregular and against the law of the
Church - this led to a breakdown of respect for the law, and a
culture of violence and oppression:
i)The common opinion was that marriage was reputedly got by
Elizabeth & her mother practising witchcraft.
ii) Definitely it was done in secret (Hicks points out that
according to Church rules the couple should have remarried publicly,
but never did).
iii) The last thing wrong with Edward's marriage to Elizabeth was
that he wasn't free to marry her in the first place as he "stood
married and troth-plight to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the
old earl of Shrewsbury".
Therefore the couple had been living in adultery and all their issue
were bastards.
3) Clarence's artainder debarred his issue
4) Richard was the "undoubted son and heir of Richard, late duke of
York. . . born within this land, by reason whereof, as we deem in our
minds, ye be more naturally iinclined to the propserity and common
weal of the same AND ALL THE THREE ESTATES OF THIS LAND HAVE AND MAY
HAVE MORE CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR BIRTH AND FILIATION ABOVESAID[ie
they could be more certain he was actually York's son]."
5) Richard has great qualities and a fantastic record.
For all the above, they have chosen him as king.

The reason why the matter of Edward's bastardy wasn't put more
publicly and as prime argument is that it would have involved Cecily
publicly admitting her adultery, a step either she or Richard
were presumably unwilling to take given that the problems with
Edward's own marriage gave them a way out.

Marie

marie said:

[snip]
>
> One copy did survive, and resurfaced in the 17th century (I think);
> otherwise we wouldn't know the real precontract lady was eleanor
> Butler and not Lady Lucy. I have the text.

The text is online at http://www.r3.org/bookcase/texts/tit_reg.html ,
thanks to the efforts of several Society members, in the American Branch
and elsewhere.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...
2041 Christian Street, Philadelphia PA 19146-1338
215-985-1445
(sent from my backup account, backup@...)