This chapter undertakes a corpus linguistic exploration of the royal correspondence material, following the scribal/holograph division of the previous chapter. Using keyword analysis and lexical bundles, the analysis identifies features that firstly, differentiate royal correspondence from its non-royal counterpart; and secondly, differentiate scribal and holograph royal letters. The evidence correlates with the material analysis in Chapter 2, with formulaicity and consistency key elements of scribal letters which may have indexed a more overt and institutionalised royal power. Holograph letters, on the other hand, show a more variable and idiosyncratic make-up, providing a more personal frame to the epistolary interaction with a letter's recipient.

Chapter 3 looks at three pragmatic properties of royal correspondence: metacommunication, self-reference and regulative speech acts. Each feature reflects how royal correspondence constructs the relationship between sovereign and subject, and the extralinguistic context in which the letters operate. The evidence for metacommunication indicates that royal correspondence draw attention to their processes of composition, their material worth, and the intended nature of their reception. Scribal letters foregrounded their legal legitimacy, whereas holograph documents point to the personal investment of the author. Self-reference highlights the pragmatic affordances of royal we as a distinctive pronominal option of royal correspondence, particularly in scribal letters. The discussion of regulative speech acts, such as directives, illustrates the formulaicity of these pragmatic acts, with different degrees of directness operating in scribal and holograph letter types.

Chapter 2 explores the material properties of royal correspondence, focussing on evidence that correlates with the scribal/holograph provenance of the texts. Five features are examined in a corpus of over 100 royal letters issued by the Tudor monarchs: material provenance markers, handwriting, page orientation, signature placement, and signature style. The chapter finds that royal scribal letters have distinctive material features that make their royal source explicit, with these characteristics used very consistently throughout the Tudor period. Holograph royal letters show a reduced propensity to follow these material codes, and instead show a greater individuality more typical of non-royal letter-writing in the period. The differences are proposed to arise from the different production processes of the letter types, affecting the degree of institutionalised power presented to the letter's recipient. Elizabeth's correspondence shows a wider variation in material choices than that of her predecessors, potentially indicative of shifts in how correspondence was utilised, and the values placed on holograph writing by the end of the sixteenth century.