Romance between Elizabeth of York and Richard III?

[Kimberly]

Oh bless you Eric. I have heard and read varying reports on this book, not least that it is a bit one-sided but I haven't read it so I cannot say for myself. I have an excellent book on my shelf; "Elizabeth Woodville, Mother of the Princes in the Tower", by David Baldwin and I can only heartily recommend it, especially, the appendices which are brimmed full of information.

[Eric_Lowe]

I read both books. I think the okerlurd is better researched. You need to read in order to compare.

[Elisabeth]

Er, yeah, folks. Might I please note here that no one has yet cited any concrete historical evidence whatsoever that before his marriage to Anne Neville Richard applied for a papal dispensation in the first degree. Quite possibly because such a papal dispensation was never applied for and does not in fact exist?

I also frankly find the argument about Elizabeth of York, moral scruples, and romantic love more than a little naive and beside the point. Kindly remember that we are talking about English royalty and the highest ranks of the aristocracy in the FIFTEENTH CENTURY. Romantic love, or even the notion of love, was not a consideration in the contraction of royal marriages... Moreover, everybody who has studied Richard III's reign, even people like myself who don't admire him and regard him as the purest embodiment of his age in the worst possible sense, know full well that the Woodvilles were a power-hungry, greedy, even rapacious clan who only cared about their own selfish best interests. My question to you is, why do you think Elizabeth of York, daughter of Elizabeth Woodville, perhaps the most selfish and ambitious Woodville of them all, would be any different? Why wouldn't she want to marry her uncle, Richard III, if he was eager for the union and if it meant she could be queen consort of England (as opposed to some illegitimate offspring of Edward IV bundled off to a nunnery, there to spend the rest of her days)? For that matter, why wouldn't she want to marry Henry Tudor a year later for the very same reason? Good God, people, even leave aside for a moment the Woodville family psychology and just take human nature into account. Elizabeth of York was by all accounts a very comely young woman but not exactly blessed with the biggest brain. I would even venture to say that she quite enjoyed this all too brief period of being in great demand in the royal marriage sweepstakes of 1484-85.

I honestly don't think familal ties counted for s*** with these people when it all came down to the nitty-gritty of power and status. Even the most ardent admirers of Richard III must admit that his relations with his brother Clarence were self-interested, even distinctly unfriendly in the last years of Clarence's life. Moreover, Richard obviously prized his own political survival over the best interests of his brother Edward IV's children, when he bastardized and deposed Edward V.

In short, we can't think about these people in 21st-century terms. As difficult as it might be, we have to try to put ourselves in their late 15th-century shoes... The courtly world in which they lived was a veritable snakepit. All the historical evidence attests that only the strongest and the most morally unscrupulous survived (at least for a little while...). And this political situation held true well into the next century, one could even argue throughout the 16th century.

[Kimberly]

Elisabeth, I absolutely AGREE with your comments regarding Elizabeth of York (and I always had a feeling that she was a bit of a ninny).
Your final paragraph is vitally important and something we always need to remind ourselves about (especially the young kids that come here).

[Elisabeth]

Kimberly, thank you so much for your kind words. They're very gracious indeed, coming from someone who doesn't agree with me at all about the political profile and personality of Richard III. Of course, I do hold to the notion that Richard III was, shall we say, more than a little naughty, even by the standards of his age. But as you yourself have demonstrated, we can certainly be civil in our disagreements and arguments about him and the nature of his reign.

Terence, nowhere does Michael Hicks argue that Richard III poisoned Queen Anne. As a matter of fact, Hicks points out more than once that the murder of Anne was "only" a rumor towards the end of Richard's reign. Which is to say, Anne was already dying of some unspecified disease (probably tuberculosis) at the very same time that Richard was publicly denying prevalent rumors that he was poisoning her and planning to marry Elizabeth of York when his wife kicked the bucket. But Richard's (historically well documented) public denial is precisely what's so damning to him. For one thing, unless a general hue and cry against Richard had been raised by his subjects, at least in London, no king would ever deign to address, much less defend himself against, such horrible rumors in public. Richard's very admission that such rumors existed indicates that the common people considered him capable of any crime, including the murder of his spouse and an incestuous marriage with his own niece. This conclusion, by Hicks and other modern historians, is borne out by the testimony of at least two contemporary 15th-century sources, Crowland and Mancini. According to them, Richard was held in such ill repute because the princes in the Tower had already disappeared by this time, and the English people regarded him as guilty of their murder.

[Romanov_fan]

How much do we really know about Elizabeth of York? ( I admit I'm not an expert on this era of English history, and haven't read these books mentioned in this thread's last few pages) I thought she tended to the quiet type, more in the background, not power hungry, like her mother. I agree she would have needed to marry who she needed to marry just to survive. Nobody has ever solved the mystery of the death of the Princes in the Tower ( in my opinion)- some say Richard III did them in, some say Henry VII. Elizabeth of York's marriage to Henry VII wasn't a love match, it was for political reasons. So maybe she would have contemplated marrying Richard too for political reasons. I doubt Elizabeth ever knew what happened to her brothers.

[Kimberly]

Well, Elisabeth, there is no need for handbags at ten paces is there, we are, after all, Laydees :-).
Poor Richard. I believe he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't regarding the public denial over Anne's death. If he had kept silent that would have been picked apart by historians (amateur and professional). It is so easy to pass judgement on a medieval man from the comfort of our armchairs.

[Eric_Lowe]

From what was written about Elizabeth of York (through the eyes of others during the reign of Henry VII and more intimately through Catherine of Aragon), there is no evidence of her being selfish at all. She was gentle and motherly to Catherine of Aragon after the death of Arthur. I don't think she was the type of "I would be queen at any cost" and certainly an incestous relationship with her uncle would not fit her interest at all. Also the timeline, Elizabeth Woodville was already plotting with Margaret Beaufort for a match between her and the younger Henry Tudor. I have no doubt that she would play along for the ride, but her heart would be very far from a romance with an uncle.

[Paul]

Are there any accessible bios about Elisabeth of York? I'd be very interested in reading more about her.

After reading Imperial Angel's last post, it occurs to me that I've only read about E of Y in biographies about other members of her family.

[Kimberly]

I have had a quick "google" and there is a bio out there. Nancy Lenz Harvey; The biography of Elizabeth of York, published in 1973.
Alibris has used copies for upwards of £10 and Amazon UK also (£32 !!!).

[Romanov_fan]

I've read that book, actually. If you read the review on Amazon ( US) it says it is kind of a generic book, not real great. I read it ten years ago now, so my memory is a bit hazy on it, but I don't recall it was great, although it was interesting to read.

[Kimberly]

I think that is the only one  for Elizabeth of York

[Elisabeth]

From what was written about Elizabeth of York (through the eyes of others during the reign of Henry VII and more intimately through Catherine of Aragon), there is no evidence of her being selfish at all. She was gentle and motherly to Catherine of Aragon after the death of Arthur. I don't think she was the type of "I would be queen at any cost" and certainly an incestous relationship with her uncle would not fit her interest at all. Also the timeline, Elizabeth Woodville was already plotting with Margaret Beaufort for a match between her and the younger Henry Tudor. I have no doubt that she would play along for the ride, but her heart would be very far from a romance with an uncle.

In case you haven't noticed, "gentle and motherly," sweet and tender in all her feelings, charitable and pious, a true Christian in all her thoughts and deeds, resolute in her faith, etc., etc., etc. (one could truly go on endlessly), constituted the standard, state-approved description of every English queen from the Middle Ages well though the early modern age.

I find it quite amusing that some of us here, who refuse to accept what they call "Tudor propaganda" about Richard III, are only all too willing to swallow - hook, line, and sinker - quite obvious Tudor propaganda about the first Tudor queen consort, Elizabeth of York.

The fact of the matter is, we know very little about Elizabeth of York, except that she was the most notable pawn in the high-stakes royal matrimonial game between Richard III and the future Henry VII in late 15th-century England.

I tend to agree with Kim, Elizabeth was probably something of a "ninny"... indeed, probably your archetypal dumb blonde. I don't mean this as an insult to blondes (I am blonde myself). But everyone here must recognize that there's a certain type of young, nubile female who's completely caught up in her own sexual attractiveness and appeal to the opposite sex. Face it, it's an elixir, it's power, it's mind-blowing, especially if you're still only in your teens and middle-aged men are acting like fawning idiots around you... The most stable and intelligent, the most pragmatic brain has lost its powers of reason with far less temptation. I suspect Elizabeth's was not the most intelligent brain. Indeed, I suspect she was, as the historic record (admittedly, it's patchy) attests, first completely under the sway of her mother, Elizabeth of York, and then under that of any other powerful personality who came into her orbit (Richard III, Henry Tudor later Henry VII).

I've heard that Henry VII treated Elizabeth rather shabbily. I can't remember where I read this. But it was definitely to the effect that he accorded her very little respect and while he seems to have loved her, in his own fashion, as the mother of his children, he wasn't exactly emotionally overcome by her death. Wasn't he at the very least contemplating asking the hand in marriage of Juana the Mad, the sister of his daughter-in-law Catherine of Aragon, mere months after Elizabeth's death?

As I said in a previous post, I don't think these particular rulers, these kings and princes, queens and princesses, who inhabited the highest ranks of power and status in their narrow little 15th-16th-century royal world, gave much time or thought to ordinary emotions or indeed to any deep emotional attachment to fellow human beings. They seem to me a very cold lot. I doubt we would like them much, if we were somehow to be forced into their company.

[Kimberly]

^^^ yes, yes and yes. She was probably exquisitely good at embroidery too.
Whilst we are on the subject of dispelling some myths...you wouldn't want to stand downwind of them either. Even though the rich had the use of perfumes and oils to cover up their noxious body odours, both rich and poor alike had problems with body lice. The laundresses would rub the hems of gowns (where lice would congregate) with a substance (I think it was wormwood) an early de-louser.
Here is a quote from Erasmus you might find interesting!

“The doors are, in general, laid with white clay, and are covered with rushes, occasionally renewed, but so imperfectly that the bottom layer is left undisturbed, sometimes for twenty years, harbouring expectoration, vomiting, the leakage of dogs and men, ale droppings, scraps of fish, and other abominations not fit to be mentioned.

[Elisabeth]

^^^ yes, yes and yes. She was probably exquisitely good at embroidery too.
Whilst we are on the subject of dispelling some myths...you wouldn't want to stand downwind of them either. Even though the rich had the use of perfumes and oils to cover up their noxious body odours, both rich and poor alike had problems with body lice. The laundresses would rub the hems of gowns (where lice would congregate) with a substance (I think it was wormwood) an early de-louser.
Here is a quote from Erasmus you might find interesting!

“The doors are, in general, laid with white clay, and are covered with rushes, occasionally renewed, but so imperfectly that the bottom layer is left undisturbed, sometimes for twenty years, harbouring expectoration, vomiting, the leakage of dogs and men, ale droppings, scraps of fish, and other abominations not fit to be mentioned.

What a brilliant quote, Kim! It reminds me of the passage in Kathryn Harrison's novel, Poison, in which Marie Louise de Bourbon, who was married to Carlos II of Spain in the seventeenth century, is dressed by her maids in crinolines festooned with tiny, suspended baskets of honey, put in place in order to attract the lice away from the princess's body.

I wish I could find this passage in the novel now... of course, it's possible I read it somewhere else. It's even possible that the novelist made it up. But it seems like such a realistic detail, doesn't it? Knowing as we do that an entire century later, the sky-high hairstyles of Marie Antoinette and her female contemporaries frequently paid host to all manner of vermin.