[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Victoria

Agreed - definitive statements aren’t really possible. We just don’t know enough. There’s so little evidence that the discovery of a single new source document could swing the discussion in an entirely different direction.

I stand corrected And honestly, though I’ve enjoyed reading some background material, I know virtually nothing about English history. But even if “Lords Spiritual” helped draft the document, isn’t their silence about Edward’s bigamy during his lifetime suspicious, and ethically problematic? Could their support for Richard reflect other things, such as fear, currying favour, etc?

Despite the lack of evidence, something about this story seems to provoke strong opinions and firm conclusions. Maybe because it treads on our values. This discussion and background material has been interesting and informative. But I wonder if it’s actually changed anyone’s mind? It’s only shifted mine marginally - I have a bit more space for doubt.

Sorry Victoria - I was interrupted and only sent you a part answer. On the matter of Edward IV, their disapproval is expressed in the document called Titulus Regius, but disapproving of his behaviour is very different from the ruling on his previous marriage once this became known. And that could only happen after Edward IV died, assuming the man who knew, Bishop Stillington, wanted to stay alive and healthy!

I don't expect that any minds have been changed, and of course it can be argued about endlessly I suppose, including considering whether everyone went along with the decision because everyone was afraid of Richard's power. All of them together? The Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, hearing the evidence and deciding that the children were illegitimate, Clarence's children were not in the succession because of the attainder of their father, and so Richard was therefore the legal heir.

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

Some are critical of the legality of Titulus Regius because Parliament was considered to have operated outside their jurisdiction in determining the invalidity of Edward IV’s marriage. According to the practices of the time an ecclesiastical court would have made this ruling usually.

Well, I'm no expert on the laws of the time, but I would have thought what was called the three Estates of the Realm making a decision which was then passed into law by Parliament was pretty solid. If the church had not been a part of it, that would have been different.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Just the fact that Titulus Regius was created to benefit one king and then repealed to benefit another when the wind changed calls the document into question; was it actually anything but a tool of political expediency?

Yes, the law passed by Parliament was repealed by Henry VII. That doesn't call the document, and the decision, into question in my opinion. But certainly laws made by one Parliament can be changed or repealed by another.