The New Murrey and Blue blog

THE SURVIVAL OF Titulus Regius

, , , , ,
, , , ,

©  Annette Carson, 2026

Richard III



In January 1486 Henry VII decided to repeal Richard III’s Act of Succession, Titulus Regius. The repeal had no legal effect, as I have argued in my paper ‘Investigating Henry VII’s Repeal of Titulus Regius’: this is because Richard had already been king for six months before the confirmatory Act came to Parliament in January 1484. The grounds for his succession had been established in June 1483, and Henry VII did not even attempt to refute them.
However, the Tudor king’s Act of Repeal contained some extraordinary measures, one of which had a very long-lasting effect. This was the order that Richard’s Act ‘be taken and removed from the roll and records of the parliament … and burnt and entirely destroyed’ – with punishments including imprisonment for non-compliance. The result was that for more than a century the wildest stories were spread about bastardization, usurpation and murder, with nothing to counteract them.
Those who did know differently kept their heads down. Those who didn’t care, like Thomas More, thought it fair game to trash Richard’s reputation.
Yet the original manuscript of Titulus Regius remains unmolested and resides in The National Archives. Somebody arranged for it to disappear, which it did for the next hundred years, until somebody else found it and made a private copy. That copy was seen by William Camden, Clarenceux Herald, who published a summary of it on 1607. Four years later it was published in full by John Speed. So it was only when the Tudors were safely out of the way that the legitimate grounds for Richard’s succession were published for all to see. By then, of course, the damage was done.
When I wrote my original ‘Investigating’ paper in 2024 I wanted to add a final section suggesting how the Act managed to survive, but this turned out to be a lengthy quest involving the Society of Antiquaries, the College of Arms and the British Library. I have at last taken the research as far as my resources allow, and that last section has now been added. The link for ‘Investigating the Repeal’ is here: https://tinyurl.com/d6tmxya4
I have also published ‘The Survival of Titulus Regius’ as a short stand-alone article which you can read by clicking here: https://tinyurl.com/bp9p8kx8

Subscribe to my newsletter

5 responses to “THE SURVIVAL OF Titulus Regius”

  1. Christine Kutlar-kreutz Avatar
    Christine Kutlar-kreutz

    vielen, vielen Dank für diesen Artikel! Das werde ich im Internet weiter empfehlen! So ziemlich jeder Content Creator beharrt auf die Ansicht der konservativen Historiker! Und es ist sehr mühsam, immer wieder erneut auf die Irrtümer hinzuweisen! Jetzt habe ich einen erneuten, sehr ausführlichen Artikel, den ich vorweisen kann. Das war unbedingt nötig. Vielen Dank

    Like

    Reply
  2. Beth Williams Avatar
    Beth Williams

    Annette, a long overdue clarification for the Titulus Regius, and a relief to see in print – I myself have wondered how a George Buk came to find a copy of it when all copies were destroyed by Henry in 1485-6, even more curious to me how did Croyland have a copy?

    Like

    Reply
  3. Beth Williams Avatar
    Beth Williams

    Just read the earlier (2024) version, which I actually prefer as it includes considerable specific detail that even some or many Ricardians may not have known – taken together the two articles are a reminder – to me at least – that Henry of Richmond had pulled off a quite a series of hoaxes: descending from the illegitimate Beaufort line he had no claim to the house of Lancaster, never actually legitimizing his Yorkist wife but the same Papal Bull that allowed the marriage also protected him by shielding him as ‘of the house of Lancaster’ – not to forget the extraordinary legal feat of declaring himself king before 22 August, 1485, before anyone was on the field outside Leicester, and now the very good likelihood that the Titulus Regius was not destroyed, why? In Henry’s excessive insecurity (mounting daily) he made it so onerous an obstacle for the legal operatives to carry out that they required indemnity first before even touching said document, forget ripping it out and burning it into oblivion.

    Henry’s response to this document was so excessive, so completely unhinged that in a perverse way it insured that it would survive, somewhere, somehow, quite the opposite of Henry’s fevered intent.  All I can say to Annette, is wow, and thank you! Loved reading both articles, your work and research paid off, truly fine work. Bravo!

    Like

    Reply
  4. Gary Avatar
    Gary

    In my 40+ years of reading about the later Plantaganets somewhere I recall reading that the courageous monks of Croyland Abbey (modern spelling Crowland) had maintained a copy of Titulus Regius which survived the Dissolution and was the basis of our knowledge of its actual contents. I googled the question “Did Croyland Abbey sava a copy of Titulus Regis?” and the AI answer I got back was:

    “Yes, a copy of Titulus Regius was preserved in the Croyland Chronicle (also known as the Crowland Chronicle). 

    Following King Henry VII’s order to destroy all copies of the statute in November 1485, an excerpt summarizing the act was transcribed into the Second Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle, a monastic record compiled at Croyland Abbey in Lincolnshire around April 1486.  This inclusion likely occurred under the influence of John Russell, the Bishop of Lincoln and Richard III’s former Lord Chancellor, who visited the abbey during that period.  While the original parliamentary roll survived untouched despite Henry’s orders, the Croyland Chronicle provided the primary text that allowed Sir George Buck to recover and publish the statute in the 17th century.”

    Much appreciate viscountess’s excellent work in proving that evil Henry’s attempts to change official Parlimentary History were thwarted but Richard had other defenders who preserved his valid claims to the throne.

    Like

    Reply
    1. jrlarner Avatar
      jrlarner

      Thank you – but Annette Carson and Viscountess are not the same person!

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment

Why are you reporting this comment?

Report type