The New Murrey and Blue blog

Titulus Regius 1486 – what it says and doesn’t say

, , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , ,

Here, Annette Carson discusses the results of her research, which are that the legislation didn’t restore Henry VII‘s brothers-in-law to their previous succession rights.

If it had, the Missing Princes Project‘s interim findings would show that:
1) The former Edward V would have been restored, reinforced by his Dublin coronation.
2) He either died at Stoke Field or effectively abdicated, which would have made Richard of Shrewsbury king as Richard IV.

Anyway, enough of the hypotheticals …

Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. H.J. Hill Avatar
    H.J. Hill

    it’s “nice to see” (no, it’s really not!) that things haven’t changed during the past few centuries. As a former Speaker of the U.S House of Representatives said in 2010, the House would have to pass a certain hundreds of pages long bill “so you can find out what’s in it”.

    Oh, okay. Now I understand.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Q Avatar
      Q

      I feel the whole thing won’t change as long as the current royal house in UK sits on the throne. It’s clear from whom they derive their right to reign and who they will defend

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a comment