Talk:Titulus Regius

Questions

Hi Isis. I found this very interesting, but I have a few questions:

1. Would a more modern translation be more appropriate?
2. If not, what is the source of this translation?
3. Might it not be better to give a summary of the document rather than to quote it all?
4. In the first paragraph, is it "reame of England", or "realme".

It was especially interesting to me because I wrote the original Edward V, which has been much improved by you. Thanks. Danny

As far as I can find out, this isn't a translation but, rather, the English version that was issued at the time. There are any number of translations/modernizations around, but I like it the way it was written. (So it's "reame" unless whoever typed it in goofed, and I'd have to see the original myself to be able to tell, but if you find one on the Internet that's typed differently but with the original spellings and punctuation, I'll believe this one is a typo.)
I think it is important to quote the whole thing (and in the original words), because abridging it any way undercuts its authenticity. There's too much misinformation and propaganda out there for Morton's version. If you say, "Well, Parliament said that wasn't so," your reader may well be unconvinced, but when you put Parliament's own words in front of them, that's dispositive of the issue.
Thanks for your kind words about the Edward V page. I'm new here and don't know my way around yet, and it's nice to know I did something right. -- isis

I found the original English version, and it's definitely "reame" all the way thru, and I've replaced the one I had with the more authentic text. I would like to keep the full, original text, which is why I posted it as a separate article (and I think it is of value to scholars of the English language), but to address your concern, do you think it would help if somebody (that's a hint for you to volunteer) were to highlight the pertinent/interesting parts? Maybe by bolding them, but I think coloring them would be better; I'm too new here to know how much html works, but I'm guessing color tags do. -- isis

---

I've protected this page because it's the text Parliament issued and so shouldn't be edited. If you want to change the intro and can't unprotect it to do so, please tell me on my talk page, and I'll unprotect it for you. -- isis 29 Aug 2002

I've unprotected the article. If you simply must have a place to put a pure, uneditable document, either put it on an external website or upload it as a text file and link it. It's important that articles be editable without begging a gatekeeper for access. --Brion

I don't know how to do either of those, and as far as I know this version of the text is not available on any external site. -- isis 6 Sep 2002

Well, to start with, what's your source for the text? You're talking about alternate versions, but you don't cite the source of this one, nor is the existence of alternate versions mentioned in the article.

As far as online sources, what about this one? (It claims to come from Rotuli parliamentorum; ut et petitiones, et placita in parliamento. 6 vols. folio, [1783], and index vol., folio, 1832.) A few spot checks seem to shew it to be substantially the same (plus header and footer material), but I could be wrong. They use "f" to represent long "s", which is rather annoying, though.

Had I have known what I was doing, I would have used "s"s! My intent, better or worse, was to stay as close to the text to which I had access. I used the Strachey and attempted to follow it as closely as possible. It makes for irritating reading and definitely made for troublesome typing.

One could argue that we should have interpreted/modernized/edited, but this was a new type of project for me and I attempted not to stray from narrow parameters. The Strachey is 18th c and probably does contain formatting/contractions from that time; I don't know since I haven't seen the original rolls. So -- I simply typed what I saw in order to get the text up and available to Ricardians.

Interestingly, Chris Given-Wilson has come out with a 16 volume set of Rotuli parliamentorum as well as a CD edition. I'm very curious to see how he's presented the rolls. Regards. --Charlie 08:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You can upload and link a text file by saving your text as a text file (use a text editor or a word processor and save as plain text) and uploading it, then link it as [[media:the title of my file.txt|Click here for the full text of the act]] or such. --Brion

There's only one original text issued by Parliament, and the other "versions" are unofficial modernizations. I spent a lot of time replacing all the fraktur "s"s with ordinary ones, which is what made this text unique to Wikipedia, and that's what I was trying to protect. If I had known how to do it this way, I wouldn't have done it that way. Thanks for telling me how. -- isis 7 Sep 2002

Act of Parliament

The article describes this as an Act of Parliament. This puzzled me, since for an act to be passed, it would need the Royal Assent, but who would give the assent at that stage? Reading it carefully, strictly speaking it is not, it is a petition from the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons to Richard to take the Crown. It also uses the word "election" but they can hardly mean this in the modern sense. PatGallacher 10:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

(I'm very new to editing here, so please forgive any formatting transgressions.) The text Isis provides is missing two "introductory" paragraphs in the parliamentary rolls that include language to your point about "assent." Pertinent, perhaps, is "...to the which Rolle, and to the Consideracions and instant Peticion comprized in the same, our said Souveraine Lord, for the public wele and tranquillite of this Land, benignely assented." (There may be typos in that; it's late.)

Her text is wonderful -- or what I read is. I'm not sure why Isis didn't include the two paragraphs; the paragraphs were not included in the text presented to Richard, but are part of the rolls and reiterate the text as what Parliament intended.--Charlie 08:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

When the Titulus Regius was passed, there was a King, Richard III, who gave assent; the TR itself clearly distinguishes between the act of parliament, and the previousRoll of parchment, not a act of parliament, whose content the TR mutuates. Here is the quote:

"Where late heretofore, that is to say, before the Consecration, Coronation and Enthronization of our Sovereign Lord the King Richard the Third, a Roll of Parchment, containing in writing certain Articles of the tenor underwritten, on the behalf and in the name of the three Estates of this Realm of England, that is to wit, of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons, by many and diverse Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and other Nobles and notable persons of the Commons in great multitude, was presented and actually delivered unto our said Sovereign Lord the King, to the intent and effect expressed at large in the same Roll; to the which Roll, and to the Considerations and instant Petition comprised in the same, our said Sovereign Lord, for the public weal and tranquility of this Land, benignly assented.

Now forasmuch as neither the said three Estates, neither the said persons, which in their name presented and delivered, as is abovesaid, the said Roll unto our said Sovereign Lord the King, were assembled in form of Parliament; by occasion whereof, diverse doubts, questions and ambiguities, been moved and engendered in the minds of diverse persons, as it is said: Therefore, to the perpetual memory of the truth, and declaration of the same, be it ordained, provided and established in this present Parliament, that the tenor of the said Roll, with all the continue of the same, presented, as is abovesaid, and delivered to our before said Sovereign Lord the King, in the name and on the behalf of the said three Estates out of Parliament, now by the same three Estates assembled in this present Parliament, and by authority of the same, be ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorized, into removing the occasion of doubts and ambiguities, and to all other lawful effect that shall more thereof ensue; so that all things said, affirmed, specified, desired and remembered in the said Roll, and in the tenor of the same underwritten, in the name of the said three Estates, to the effect expressed in the same Roll, be of like effect, virtue and force, as if all the same things had been so said, affirmed, specified, desired and remembered in a full Parliament, and by authority of the same accepted and approved. The tenor of the said Roll of Parchment, whereof above is made mention, follows and is such." (text of the TR by the link in the footnote to main article) 93.36.218.51 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

pre-contract

Forms of the word pre-contract are used several times to describe Edward IV's (alleged) first marriage. Does the pre mean that it preceded his Woodville marriage, or that the contract was never completed? Either way, the word were better replaced with less ambiguous wording. —Tamfang (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It means the contract of marriage was never complete, and it's the standard wording for this topic. Perhaps we should explain it in the article though. It was legally binding, which is why the Woodville marriage was said to be void. Richard75 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Richard75 is right in describing what is meant by modern authors by the word pre-contract; however, there was no such thing as a precontract in medieval law; the word itself comes out of the Titulus Regius, where it says that Edward was pre-contracted to Eleanor, meaning that he was "contracted" (=married) to Eleanor before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The "pre" points at priority in time not to another contract with Eleanor, but to the similar contract with Elizabeth. In its modern sense the pre-contract is a fiction, which gets muddled up with the different case, that a promise to marry someone in future if they first consented to marital relations was deemed to make a marriage if then intercourse actually took place. But there is no question of that in the TR, which simply stated Edward and Eleanor had married before Edward married Elizabeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.217.72 (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Edward V's reign

It's not quite right to say that Edward V never reigned. He did reign briefly before Richard's coup. The TR annulled his reign retrospectively. I'll try to come up with a way to say that in the article. Richard75 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)