#(the quote is by J.L. Laynesmith)

[wonder-worker]

something I find especially entertaining about Edward IV's reign is how Scandalous™ it was lol

he married a woman “whose origins broke all established conventions for English queenship” in a secret ceremony without consulting any of his lords and then made it everyone else's problem. he committed regicide, he committed fratricide; he was accused of bastardry, he was accused of bigamy and a 19-year-long sham marriage, he was accused of using necromancy against his subjects, he was accused of being enchanted by witchcraft by both his wife and his mother-in-law (multiple times). his own mother was said to "rule the king as she pleased" in the early years of his reign. he knew he was hot and actively milked it for money. he was vain as fuck: “he was wont to show himself to those who wished to watch him, and he seized any opportunity that the occasion offered of revealing his fine stature to onlookers”. he knew everything about everyone. "he was more favourable than other princes to foreigners". he was “fond of boon companionship, vanities, debauchery, extravagance and sensual enjoyments”; he was "thought to have indulged in his passions and desires too intemperately”; "it was ever feared he was not chaste”. his subjects publicly gossiped about his sex life, his doctors thought he was insane. NOBODY understood how he was still competent despite all this.

honestly, who was doing it like him?

[wonder-worker]

“Although (Elizabeth of York) was presented as the ultimate Tudor trophy wife, her position and popularity were potential threats to her husband’s authority.” - Lauren Rose Browne

*sigh*

When are we going to move past this dismissive, simplistic and frankly rather problematic image of Elizabeth of York? Derek Neal encapsulates what exactly is so troubling about it far better than I could, which I'm quoting below:

“The first Tudor consort is mainly remembered as a dynastic symbol, one element of an equation: York plus Tudor equals peace. In this interpretation, handed down to us by the Tudor chroniclers via Shakespeare, Elizabeth accomplished her most important work, if not without lifting a finger, merely by proffering a finger for a wedding ring.”

We need to stop defining Elizabeth of York by the basic purpose of her marriage and queenship and begin understanding her through the actual practice of her queenship.*

Because the fact of the matter is, Elizabeth of York was a tremendously successful queen. She was an able intercessor, an active administrator of her lands, and a patroness in her own right. We have evidence that Henry listened to her on matters that people often assume he acted alone or only through his mother's advice. She contributed culturally to the court, including festivities and building projects, and played an active and positive role in queenly diplomacy, including but not limited to her involvement in her sisters’ and children’s marriages, her correspondence with the Pope and foreign rulers, and receiving important ambassadors in her husband’s absence**. She may have some discreet influence in some appointments in the Crown Prince's household. In short, Elizabeth of York excelled in spheres of queenship that were both conventional and powerful, because the two could and did co-exist, because medieval queenship was inherently political and the lines between public and private were blurred to the point of non-existence for queens just as they were for kings. As we can clearly see, Elizabeth was not presented as a “trophy wife” any more than literally any queen consort before or after her; she was, in fact, an evidently active and influential queen who greatly inspired both her daughter and her daughter-in-law's queenships respectively.

Furthermore, Elizabeth of York’s position was not a "threat" to her husband. Why would it be? As J.L. Laynesmith (whose reading of Elizabeth I don't agree with either) says, "Identification with Elizabeth of York's kin aided Henry VII in gaining an entire kingdom." The Croyland Chronicle, a contemporary source, likewise emphasizes her importance in cementing Henry VII's position: in Elizabeth "there could be found whatever appeared to be missing in the king's title elsewhere." Elizabeth of York's position, in fact, bolstered Henry VII's kingship, and this extended far beyond his marriage to her. We must remember that while Henry Tudor was Lancastrian in blood and allegiance, his fight for the throne was very much as a Yorkist claimant - specifically, a claimant for Edwardian Yorkists against Richard III's rule (The events of 1483 were a violent conflict within the Yorkist dynasty, not an external threat against the Yorkist dynasty). You could argue that Henry VII's road to the throne was, effectively, as Edward IV's symbolic heir rather than Henry VI's (who was quite irrelevent to the current conflict, tbh): Henry Tudor was the prospective husband of the Yorkist heiress and the 'avenger' of the dead Yorkist Princes. This was the widely recognized interpretation of contemporaries like Croyland and William Caxton*** and was also how he gained the majority of his new support in England which (without discounting his own initiative, actions and clear competence) were essential to both make him a credible threat and ultimately win Bosworth. He relied on several of her father's former councilors as well, ensuring a great deal of continuity between their reigns. In this context, Elizabeth of York's "position" as the Yorkist heiress, cemented by her formal proclamation as Duchess of York, was not a disadvantage to Henry VII but an indispensable advantage to him. Elizabeth herself was aware of this and played an important role in image politics for the new Tudor dynasty: "Her role as a daughter of the house of York was a major aspect of her identity. Whereas her mother and Margaret of Anjou had adopted emblems personal to them...Elizabeth of York used her father's white rose. Other Yorkist emblems such as the sun in splendour and the falcon and fetterlock were also used in Tudor iconography." As you can see, Elizabeth's contribution went far beyond merely standing at Henry's side with a wedding ring; she was actively involved in cementing the image of the Tudor dynasty in her own right, and was equally invested in doing so. In short: Elizabeth of York's "position" was not a threat to her husband’s rule; it was vital to her husband’s rule. In fact, her unique position was so important that, even years later, post-contemporary Tudor depictions gave her a uniquely equal footing to her husband: for example, in the first pageant of the coronation procession for her granddaughter Elizabeth I, Elizabeth of York was depicted as "a stabilising and legitimising force of the dynasty, and, incredibly, as the equal to her husband" - as Lauren Rose Browne herself writes.

You cannot claim that Henry VII needed Elizabeth of York to bolster his kingship and also claim that he shunted her aside because her position was a threat to his kingship. You cannot claim that Henry VII used Elizabeth of York’s Yorkist heritage to his benefit but also claim that he tried to avoid any implication of her royal inheritance. Those are fundamentally contradictory and make very little sense. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Even more baffling is the idea that Elizabeth of York's "popularity" would have somehow been a threat to her husband's authority. She and Henry lived in a world where queens were meant to embody "the feminine element necessary to legitimate sovereignty", to perform their role as Marian-like intercessors on behalf of their subjects, to engage in appropriate charity and almsgiving, and to provide "models of womanhood for the realms' female subjects"****. If Elizabeth of York was "popular" due to the reaction of crowds gathered to watch her coronation, or because of the gifts she was frequently given by her subjects, or because she was hailed as the "most gracious and best beloved Princesses in the world" after her death, her popularity means that Elizabeth was successful as queen and is an indication of how much her queenship supported and endorsed Henry VII's kingship. A popular queen benefitted the King, not the other way around.*****

(What's especially funny about this traditional interpretation is that the only actual way Elizabeth of York's position and popularity could potentially worry Henry and become a genuine "threat" to his authority is if Elizabeth herself was actively opposed to Henry and was using them against him to undermine his rule (for whatever hypothetical reason). Which would automatically indicate agency on her part and ALSO end up contradicting the "trophy wife" image. So....?)

Enough with the traditional patronizing dismissal of Elizabeth of York. Give her the credit she's due.

*What's particularly silly about hyper-focusing on the point/purpose of Elizabeth of York's marriage (a political alliance and dynastic unification) is that fundamentally, its purpose was ultimately no different from the vast majority of other English royal marriage since the Norman conquest (sans, say, her parents'). Most of them were politically arranged and/or politically motivated, just like Henry and Elizabeth's. It would be ridiculous to judge Isabella of France or Philippa of Hainault's lives and queenships solely based on how politically important their marriages were, right? They obviously had an impact apart from that and beyond that. What exactly is different about Elizabeth of York? Admittedly, her and Henry's situation wasn't exactly the same: he needed her as a potential bride to cement his position as a threat to Richard III and as a King of England; and an English princess becoming an English queen consort was unprecedented at that juncture. But ultimately, there's no reason for why Elizabeth of York's entire life and queenship should be defined and decided on the basis of how and why she married Henry VII. She lived for almost two decades after that. It's more than a little frustrating.

**From what I can make out, so much more evidence has luckily survived for Elizabeth of York's diplomatic activities compared to many of her predecessors, and with far more details. I would literally kill to get similarly detailed evidence for Elizabeth Woodville. So it's certainly strange when Elizabeth of York's role in diplomacy is not emphasized more when it comes to her queenship - especially because it is, ultimately, an expected element of queenship which queens were traditionally meant to excel at. My guess is that it's not highlighted as much because it actually gives Elizabeth agency, which historians often refuse to do.

***Edward IV definitely wasn't the first or only one to claim the red dragon (it was used for/used by many others, and some poets used it for Henry himself in the early 1460s). However, at that point in time in England specifically, it would have very much been Edward IV who was most commonly and universally associated with it; after all, he was the one who won the throne and ruled for more than two decades. Its association with Edward IV is also what would have been the most familiar to Caxton, who established himself in England only in the 1470s, and who was a supporter of Edward IV's family (aka: the Woodvilles) during that time. His support of Henry (who he did not know) during this time would have been through that context as well, rather than loyalty to Henry in his own right.

****Obviously, we can recognize how problematic such inherently gendered expectations are now, but contextualization is important.

*****Elizabeth of York's popularity as queen, at least in the beginning, may have been partly due to the fact that she was English princess who grew up in the public eye, was the daughter of a fairly well-liked king, and the fact that her marriage played a vital role in "uniting" the two rival dynasties. So her circumstances probably played a role in her popularity as well. But we shouldn't discount Elizabeth's own affability and charm, nor her evident generosity, nor the fact that however this popularity emerged, it was Elizabeth who maintained it, and it ultimately signified the success of Elizabeth's queenship and bolstered her husband's kingship.

Sources:

Lauren Rose Browne, "Elizabeth of York: Tudor Trophy Wife", "Tudor and Stuart Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty

Derek Neal, "The Queen's Grace: English Queenship 1464-1503"

J.L. Laynesmith, "The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1545-1503"

Retha M. Warnicke, "Elizabeth of York and her six daughters-in-law: Fashioning Tudor Queenship