| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| Long title | Under which title all the reasons and allegations divised to prove the King to be true and undoubted heir to the crown, are set forth at large, and the same allowed, ratified; and enacted by the lords and commons; and his brothers children made bastards. |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1 Ric. 3 c. 0 |
| Territorial extent | |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 20 February 1484 |
| Commencement | 23 January 1484[a] |
| Repealed | 7 November 1485 |
| Other legislation | |
| Repealed by | Title of the King |
Status: Repealed | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
Titulus Regius ("royal title" inLatin) is a statute of theParliament of England issued in 1484 by which the title ofKing of England was given toRichard III.
The act ratified the declaration of the Lords and the members of the House of Commons a year earlier that the marriage ofEdward IV of England toElizabeth Woodville had been invalid and so their children, includingEdward,Richard andElizabeth, were illegitimate and thus debarred from the throne. Their uncle Richard III had been proclaimed the rightful king. Since the Lords and the Commons had not been officially convened as a parliament, doubts had arisen as to its validity and so when Parliament convened, it enacted the declaration as a law.
After the death and overthrow of Richard III, the act was repealed, which reinstated the legitimacy of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's children.
Edward's marriage was invalidated because BishopRobert Stillington testified that the king had precontracted a marriage toLady Eleanor Butler.
And how also, that at the time of contract of the same pretensed Marriage, and before and long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and troth-plight to one Dame Eleanor Butler, Daughter of the old Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a precontract of Matrimony, long time before he made the said pretensed Marriage with the said Elizabeth [Woodville] Grey, in manner and form above-said.
The document also claimed that Elizabeth Woodville and her mother had used witchcraft to get the king to marry her. Since Richard's brotherGeorge, Duke of Clarence, had been executed andattainted, his descendants forfeited all rights to the throne, leaving Richard the true heir. For good measure, the document also hinted that George and Edward (born in Ireland and Normandy, respectively) were themselves illegitimate and stated Richard, "born within this land" was the "undoubted son and heir of Richard, late Duke of York".[1]
Edward's reign was also criticised, he was said to have led by "sensuality and concupiscence" and delighted in "adulation and flattery" and to have been easily influenced by "persons insolent, vicious and of inordinate avarice", a reference to the Woodville family. In contrast, Richard was said to have been a man distinguished by "great wit, prudence, justice, princely courage, and memorable and laudable acts in diverse battles."[1]
| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| Long title | Titulus Regis. |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1 Hen. 7 (part preceding c. 1) |
| Territorial extent | |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 7 November 1485 |
| Commencement | 7 November 1485[b] |
| Repealed | 30 July 1948 |
| Other legislation | |
| Repeals/revokes | Titulus Regius |
| Repealed by | Statute Law Revision Act 1948 |
Status: Repealed | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
After Richard waskilled in battle, the act was repealed by the first parliament of the new king,Henry VII. The repeal was important because the new King and his supporters viewed Richard III's rule as a usurpation and also because Henry VII's prospective wife,Elizabeth of York, whom he had pledged to marry if he gained the throne, was the eldest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville and the Act had made her illegitimate.
Henry also ordered his subjects to destroy all copies of it and all related documents without reading them. His orders were carried out so well that only one copy of the law has ever been found. That copy was transcribed by a monastic chronicler into theCroyland Chronicle, where it was discovered by SirGeorge Buck[citation needed] more than a century later during the reign ofJames I.
The repealing act was passed in the first Parliament of Henry VII, stating that the originalTitulus Regius was
void, adnulled, repelled, irrite [invalidated], and of noe force ne effecte[2]
and that the original be destroyed, and that any copies should be either destroyed or returned to Parliament on pain of fine and imprisonment.
A law report from his reign stated:
that the said Bill, Act and Record, be annulled and utterly destroyed, and that it be ordained by the same Authority, that the same Act and Record be taken out of the Roll of Parliament, and be cancelled and brent ['burned'], and be put in perpetual oblivion.[3]
Henry almost succeeded in suppressing theTitulus Regius.[4] The 100-year gap during whichTitulus Regius wascensored coincided with the ruling period of theTudor dynasty. It was known that Richard had claimed that a marriage pre-contract invalidated Edward's sons' right to the throne, but it was not known who Edward's supposed "real" wife was.Thomas More assumed that the act referred to Edward's longtime mistress,Elizabeth Lucy, a view that was repeated until Buck discovered the original document.
Edward IV's first son, thoughTitulus Regius annulled his reign, is still counted asEdward V to emphasise[citation needed] that Richard III was a usurper. Thus, Henry VII's grandson was numberedEdward VI.
