Talk:Elizabeth Woodville

Clarification

Encyclopedia Britannica gives date of death 7/8 June 1492. But http://www.britannia.com/bios/ewoodville.html gives it as 26th May 1465 at Bermondsey Abbey, Surrey, which seems quite spacific. User:Maxx

• Also quite wrong, she certainly lived well beyond 1465. Everyking 14:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The 26th May 1465 was the date of her coronation, not her death. History Lunatic (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)History Lunatic

needs edit here, backwords timeline

"later known as "Warwick the Kingmaker" because of the part he played on putting Edward on the throne and afterwards replacing him with Henry VI"

This is wrong. The rest of the article, and the historic record, indicate that Henry was king before Edward, not after

208.54.14.120 (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I had forgotten that warwick had, indeed, breifly put Henry back on the throne.208.54.14.120 (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, Henry VI was king both before and after Edward IV. :) The Earl of Warwick was so mad at Edward for marrying Elizabeth that he joined forces with Margaret of Anjou. With the aid of the formidable Earl (as well as Edward's not-so-formidable brother George — notably, Richard remained loyal to his brother, even though he didn't like the Wydvilles any more than anyone else) the Lancastrian faction was able to counter-usurp the throne, and Henry VI became King again — briefly.

Warwick had reasons for being so angry (besides not wanting a woman who was his social inferior to be Queen). At the time of Edward's secret marriage, the Earl had been engaged in trying to negotiate a marriage for the young king to a French princess, as Edward was well aware (this would have been considered a far more suitable match). The Earl also was feeling betrayed because Edward showed lots of preferment to Elizabeth's large family (she had 12 siblings (or so; not sure if she had any nieces/nephews at this point), plus 2 sons from her first marriage) rather than for Warwick himself, even though he had been a consistent and loyal supporter of the House of York since 1453 (unlike the Wydville clan, who had ties to Lancaster through Jacquetta of Luxembourg — she was the widow of Henry V's brother John, Duke of Bedford and also related to Queen Margaret through her sister's marriage to Margaret's uncle, Charles, Count of Maine — and they had only recently switched sides). Warwick's influence had been crucial to the Yorkists' victories, both military and political (e.g., he got the influential London merchants to support Edward when he showed up to claim the crown). I can sympathise with Warwick; it seems to me that his anger at Edward was justified, or at least understandable. (Just MHO, of course.) Mia229 (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Title of article

A more useful title for this article would be "Queen Elizabeth, consort of Edward IV, King of England." With reference from "Elizabeth Woodville." Torontonian1 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't because:

(a) It would be contrary to wikipedia's naming conventions for queen consorts, and

(b) She is normally known as Elizabeth Woodville by historians, Queen Elizabeth being too ambiguous

Deb (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree too. First of all, the title you propose is invented. It would also be against conventions and against consistency in the Category:English royal consorts. It would not be useful at all because no historian mentions her as "Queen Elizabeth, consort of Edward IV, King of England.", let alone the fact that there is no book about her titled "Queen Elizabeth, consort of Edward IV, King of England." On the other hand, almost 600 books refer to her as Elizabeth Woodville. z, very few Wiki article titles have periods at their end. I don't see why this article should have one. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true, she is usually referred to as "Elizabeth Woodville" (or "Wydville" or "Wodeville" or "Widville" or innumerable other spellings), although sometimes she is called Elizabeth Grey prior to her marriage to Edward. (Her first husband was Sir John Grey. Through her elder son by him, she is an ancestor of Jane Grey, the tragic "nine days' queen.") This is not unusual: e.g., Richard III's consort is always referred to as Anne Neville, and Henry VIII's wives as, e.g., Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Catherine Howard, Catherine Parr, et al. I'm not sure exactly what determined whether a woman, or a man for that matter, would be known by a surname or the name of her house (or sometimes their birthplace, at least for males, like Edward of Woodstock (aka "the Black Prince"), John of Gaunt, Henry of Bolingbroke and Henry of Monmouth (later Henrys IV and V, respectively). It appears that the "so-and-so of such-and-such" format was usually preferred if a woman was the daughter of a duke or a king: e.g., Philippa of Hainault, Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth of York, .... (Indeed, at the time, this custom may not have been limited to the daughters of dukes or kings; I seem to recall reading somewhere or other that Anne Neville signed her name (at least, on one occasion) "Anne Warwyck" (I don't remember exactly how she spelled it, but it definitely wasn't the modern spelling, and I'm pretty sure about the "y").) Does anyone know anything about the surname-versus-"of [birthplace]"-versus "of [house]" question? Mia229 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a definitive answer, but the "of xxxx" as in "Elizabeth of York" survives today in, for example, Princess Eugenie of York and Prince Harry of Wales, whilst royal princesses of some countries are still known by the name of the country (unless they have been given another title such as a dukedom). The female consorts whose surnames are used are generally commoners, in the sense of not being from within a royal family; this is true even when they are the daughters of noblemen, like Anne Neville. Deb (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the article Commoners in the United Kingdom (more useful as regards this issue than the general Commoner one), and I'm still not 100% clear on the matter. In the modern examples you gave, I note that "of Wales" and "of York" are references to the parents' titles (Prince & Princess of Wales, Duke & Duchess of York) rather than the birthplaces of the individuals in question, and the titles are purely honorary: neither is actually a Peer. According to the Commoners in the UK article, "...any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as Prince Harry of Wales or Anne, Princess Royal, is (technically) a commoner...." So it's not as clear as it seemed at first just why Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville was so scandalous (her father had (originally) been a "mere knight," but was raised to Earl Rivers by Henry VI...after he got over his anger at Grey for marrying his uncle John's widow!), while his the marriages of Clarence and Gloucester, both princes of the blood, to the daughters of the Earl of Warwick were considered perfectly acceptable and don't seem to have been questioned at all (even though Anne Neville, Gloucester's bride, had previously been married, or at least betrothed — a big deal in those days — to none other than Edward of Lancaster, Prince of Wales). One might wonder if it had to do with wealth as well as rank; Margaret of Anjou drew much derision from the English based on her father's inability to provide a dowry (although that may have had at least as much to do with her being French as her father's lack of wealth — ironically, due in large part to the fact that the duchy of Anjou was in English hands at the time). What I want to know is, what distinguishes various ladies who have no title (at least, not suo jure), that some are known as so-and-so of such-and-such and some by a mere surname, even though all are "technically" commoners?

(BTW, on a random note...I think the image of the signatures of Richard and Anne might have been in Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower (which I have a copy of...somewhere). I couldn't find the image online despite some fairly creative googling.) Mia229 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A female derives her titles & honours from the male with whom she is most closely associated. Edward IVs daughters were all *of York* because he was the Duke of York prior to becoming king & the 1st incarnation of the royal House of York, & he had bestowed upon them no further honours than that to which they were entitled by their royal birth, ie, princess of the realm. None were created suo jure duchesses. Anne Neville likely signed herself in association with her father, the Earl of Warwick, & was probably better-known as *the Lady Anne of Warwick* in her day, not the Anne Neville later historians have assigned her. Anne Boleyn was called *Lady Anne Rochford* after her father's elevation to the peerage from being a mere knight, Jane Seymour's father was also a knight, Catherine Howard's father was a younger son of a duke who himself had no title beyond *Lord Edmund* & therefore none to bestow upon his numerous offspring, & Catherine Parr was also the daughter of a knight, with neither of her previous marriages advancing her beyond the rank of baroness (ie, Lady Latimer).

Upon marriage, a female assumes the titles & honours of her spouse, & usually is known by the highest of those - the prominent exception being the Duchess of Cornwall, who really is the Princess of Wales as that is Charles's highest title, but agreed to go by his 2nd-highest for PR reasons what with the Diana thing. Anne & Isabel Neville thus became *my Lady of Gloucester* & *my Lady of Clarence* upon marrying the king's brothers, then deriving their status from their husbands. Had they been referred to as royal princesses, it would not have been in their own names as they were not born such, but as *Princess Richard* & *Princess George* (like Princess Michael of Kent today; it was incorrect for the media to say *Princess Diana* as her proper title was *the Princess Charles of Wales* or simply *Princess of Wales*, & her title of *Diana, Princess of Wales* after the divorce is the traditional way of referring to a high-status female who had been divorced). The only time that is not the rule is if the female carried a higher rank from birth - such as the current queen's cousin, Princess Alexandra of Kent, who is never referred to as *Lady Ogilvy*.

It was not at all unusual for a person of royal blood to marry a *commoner*. That was practically Edward IIIs domestic policy & a direct cause of the WOTR. John had his marriage to Isabel of Gloucester annulled for his scandalous union with Isabella of Angouleme (scandalous because she was already betrothed to Hugh de Lusignan, Count of LaMarche, but John didn't let papal niceties get in the way of it & took care of the paperwork after the fact). The House of York themselves had been technically commoners, as had the House of Lancaster before them, despite their descent from Edward III. The Nevilles (of which EIVs mother was one; the Kingmaker was her nephew) were also EIII descendents via John of Gaunt via his daughter by Catherine Swynford, Joan Beaufort, so they had accumulated great wealth & power & a quasi-royal status. Huge heiresses (like the de Bohun sisters who married Bolingbroke & his uncle Thomas of Woodstock) were also acceptable royal brides.

I think the reason the Woodville marriage was so scandalous was because

• it came from out of nowhere
• the Woodvilles were Lancastrians & Elizabeth's 1st husband was killed at 1st St Albans fighting on Henry VIs side; a Yorkist commoner may have gone down better
• Elizabeth was a widow with 2 children (Dorset was already a 6 yo at the time), not a virgin bride, & quite a bit older than 19 yo Edward, so some concern as to if, despite having 2 sons, she would be able to produce an heir (& it did take a good while for her to do it, with Elizabeth, Mary, & Cecily coming 1st)
• Elizabeth's father had been a *mere knight* (Jacquetta's marriage to Sir Richard Woodville was equally scandalous after her extremely high-ranking one to John, Duke of Bedford) despite subsequent ennoblement, *new men* were always viewed suspiciously, & Rivers was not a magnate of great estate
• like Marguerite d'Anjou before her, Elizabeth brought no welcome jingle of coin into the war-depleted treasury
• like Eleanor of Provence, whose barge was once famously pelted with garbage by Londoners, Elizabeth had quite the passel of relatives, &, like Henry III, the infatuated Edward was quite happy to shower them with goodies posthaste
• the concept of *marrying for love* was viewed as absurd (it really only took hold in the 20th century); a marriage was a contract designed for maximising financial or political gain, & Elizabeth brought neither to the kingdom
• whilst it may have been OK for younger or unimportant royal sons to wed barons' daughters, a king - with the exceptions of John, who was never expected to succeed with being the youngest of Henry IIs 4 surviving sons when he married the Gloucester heiress, & Henry IV, who was merely in queue behind the descendents of the Black Prince & Lionel of Antwerp when he married Mary de Bohun, & neither of their commoner wives were their Queen Consorts - had never done so & always made an alliance with a royal or (Continental) ducal house; Edward's impulsive, secret wedding went against the expectations for a king's behaviour as much as the heir apparent Black Prince's similar situation with wedding Joan of Kent had, & with the exception of Henry VIII, was never done again until the 20th century Duke of York (who was also not expected to succeed) married the daughter of a minor Scots earl (ie, the Queen Mum)

That's my tuppence on Mia's questions :-D ScarletRibbons (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mia, I found the signatures you mentioned at the British Richard III Society: http://www.richardiii.net/2_2_0_riii_family.php It's under the heading of The Marriage Dispute. I wasn't even looking for them (was looking up some info on John of Gloucester) & all of a sudden there they were! If you want to insert them into Richard IIIs article, maybe they'd be receptive to a request? ScarletRibbons (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A Commoner?

There seem to be enough Earls and Dukes as well as the House of Luxembourg in her family, nobility please! Eddaido (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Meaning that some of her ancestors are peers and continental nobles. That doesn't make her noble/a peer. See commoner. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Woodville is regarded by historians as the first commoner English queen consort. This was what angered Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick as he'd hoped to marry Edward to a French princess.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure who put this in The daughter of Sir Richard Woodville, she was the first commoner (i.e. non royal/dynastic) after the Norman Conquest to become queen consort of England (Isabel, Countess of Gloucester, first wife of King John, is not counted as queen consort,[citation needed] the marriage having been annulled shortly after John's accession). According to Isabel's page, she became Countess in her own right in 1183; John and Isabel were formally married in 1189. Being Countess in her own right makes her of nobility and therefore not a commoner unless you are talking non-royal; which is stated however there is a huge difference between Elizabeth Woodville (Lady Elizabeth Grey, wife of a knight) and a Countess in her own right. Perhaps we should take this example out? -- Lady Meg (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree.Deb (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Marriage

How could Edward IV have married Elizabeth Woodville in secret, aren't the banns supposed to be called? If no banns were ever called could it have been a legitimate marriage? Richard would seem justified in taking over the throne.

With the kingdom prospering, most of Richards subjects seem to have accepted that Richard was indeed a legitimate king. The whole thing only went wrong when Richards only legitimate son died. Perhaps most subjects were then beginning to wonder if there would be a resumption of the civil war.212.138.69.18 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The church tended to go along with anything they were told to do by monarchs :-)

No. And for an answer to the first question go to marriage and read the paragraph beginning "With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties". Eddaido (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

King Richard ascended to the throne on account of the alleged pre-contract between Edward and Eleanor Talbot prior to his union with Elizabeth. This, if true, would have invalidated his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, being that pre-contracts were as binding as marriage.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's right. What I was saying above was that monarchs often succeeded in getting the "official line" changed, and often did so in retrospect. And, as Henry VIII later proved, the Church itself was often divided on what was and wasn't allowed. Deb (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Caveat lector

I removed this paragraph from the article:

"Recent research has revealed that Elizabeth and her siblings were not quite the lowborn commoners that so many suppose being of the English Blood Royal themselves. It starts with King John whose daughter Eleanor married Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester founder of the English Parliament. Following the Battle of Evesham their son Guy finally ended up in Italy where he married Margherita Aldobrandesca their elder daughter Anastasia going on to marry Romano Orsini. Romano, Vicar-General of Rome at the time, was a member of the Orsini family the leading family in Rome being purveyors of Popes and Cardinals as well as both descendants and ancestors of the Royal Family. Romano’s great-granddaughter Sueva married Francesco del Balzo (aka François de Baux) both mentioned under Ancestry. Their daugher Margherita (aka Marguerite de Baux) married Pierre de Luxembourg Comte de St Pol their daughter Jacquette going on to marry Sir Richard Woodville."

My reasons for removing it are:

1. I am not aware that anyone has ever suggested that Elizabeth Woodville was "lowborn".
2. The rest of the first sentence is ambiguous - at first I read it as meaning that the "so many" who allegedly "suppose" this are the ones who are "of the English Blood Royal" (whatever that means) "themselves". However, on reading it again, I think the author may have intended to mean that the Woodvilles had English royal blood, which is I believe undisputed.
3. The next two sentences are an unpunctuated, virtually incomprehensible mess.
4. The fourth sentence is irrelevant as well as being badly-written.
5. No wikilinks.
6. The whole paragraph is completely unreferenced.

Deb (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed this content from the article:

"Elizabeth and her siblings have been stigmatised by many as ‘lowborn commoners’ but the truth is somewhat different being of the English Blood Royal themselves through their ancestor King John. Other notable ancestors include Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, founder of the English Parliament and King John’s son-in-law, and Romano Orsini, Vicar-General of Rome of the leading family in medieval Rome whose members also included Popes and Cardinals. It was through the marriage of Anastasia de Montfort, Simon’s granddaughter, to Romano Orsini that the Woodvilles acquired their royal genes. − − Promotor Veritatis (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)"

My reasons for removing it are:

1. No evidence is offered that anyone has ever suggested that Elizabeth Woodville was "lowborn".
2. The first sentence makes even less sense than it did first time round.
3. The second sentence is irrelevant
4. No wikilinks.
5. The whole paragraph is completely unreferenced.
6. An editor's signature has been included in the article text.

Deb (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To Promotor Veritatis

Dear PV, if you would like to return here, explain what you are trying to convey, and give us some sources for it, I will try to help you put it in order so that it can be added to the article. Deb (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

PV, you have deleted an entire section with the less-than-helpful edit summary "historial inaccuracy amjd suups---------------------------". If there are inaccuracies identify them and correct them by all means. Why would you delete several thousand words? If the content is disputed it can be discussed here, but you must stay on topic (the Treaty of Utrecht has its own separate page). Paul B (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm now beginning to agree with the editor who previously suggested that there is a competence issue here. Deb (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2013

So sorry Paul if I didn't complete the edit And how dare you and Deb accuse me of incompetence when neither of you are in a position to throw stones You may rule Wikipedia but as of yet not in a position to rule the world So stuff your comments up the appropriate hole before I do it in a way that neither of you would like What a pair of pathetic pedants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promotor Veritatis (talk • contribs)

It's true that we do rule Wikipedia, by Divine Right in fact. Everyone else is our minion. The world will follow, and then you will find to your cost which hole is truly appropriate. Paul B (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't be so mean, Paul, it's probsadfsfiy asnffother interssrsreot malffsdfddstuinctrioon. Deb (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC

Welcome to my parlour said the spider to the fly. Thanks for walking into mine.I just wonder Paul what the 'Sun Says' is going to make of your latest asinine comment. Get out of that hole if you can. And don't try deleting. Your comments are now on record. Promotor Veritatis (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you engage in serious discussion you will get serious answers. If you put nonsense in, expect nonsense in return. Paul B (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Confusing Title

Why is it that QEI and QEII are so numbered? Why is this not QEI, anf they II ans III respectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.63.207 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, for a start, I'm not sure she was the first English queen called Elizabeth (though she seems to be according to Queen Elizabeth). But the reason she doesn't get to be numbered is that she was a queen consort, not a queen regnant. In other words, she was the wife of the monarch, not the monarch herself, unlike Elizabeth I. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she was the first English queen called Elizabeth. The only other English queen consort named Elizabeth was this Elizabeth's daughter. One would imagine that the name was much more popular among royalty. Anyway, Paul is right. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, there was also the much more recent Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, just to be pedantic! Paul B (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To be very pedantic, she was a British (rather than English) queen ;) Surtsicna (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I had thought that England and Scotland were still in some nominal sense separate realms, even after the Act of Union, but it seems you are right, she was officially styled "Queen of Great Birtain". Paul B (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

'Queen of Great Birtain'... is that John Birt's wife...? Basket _Feudalist 13:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusing Note

note however Henry IV's first wife Mary de Bohun while he was Prince of Wales and heir apparent had died before he became King.

Bolingbroke was never Prince of Wales. He was not Richard IIs heir apparent. I'm also not sure what this note has to do with Elizabeth Woodville? ScarletRibbons (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like User:Adam37 added this false information on 11 July. I'll fix it.Deb (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

TYVM, Deb. Didn't want to edit notes willy-nilly, but it just seemed it made little sense! ScarletRibbons (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Less than half wrong wasn't it, mixed up my Henrys and I can only blame the lack of children in the succession to Richard II. Of course the fact two kings to be had married "English subjects" is pertinent, in an era when this was just beginning to happen. I hope that doesn't sound as unforgiving as your tirade. - Adam37 Talk 19:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward II was invested as the 1st Prince of Wales by Edward I. Edward III was never invested as such due to his father's forced abdication when EIII was only 14, but his eldest son Edward of Woodstock AKA the Black Prince was. After the Black Prince's death EIII made his barons swear fealty to Richard of Bordeaux as his heir apparent. Richard was invested as Prince of Wales at the insistence of the barons, who feared John of Gaunt would usurp the throne from the child. The next Prince of Wales would be Bolingbroke's son, the future Henry V. It's not an automatic creation upon the birth of an heir apparent, nor does it automatically go to the next in queue as an heir presumptive if the monarch has no offspring. Lacking a ceremonial investiture, there *is* no Prince of Wales. The current holder of the title was plain old Prince Charles until he was 18 & created Prince of Wales.

Richard IIs heir presumptive was Philippa, Countess of Ulster & March. After her death, her son Roger Mortimer, who was killed at the Battle of Kells in Ireland, became the heir presumptive. After his death, the mantle of heir presumptive fell upon his 6 yo son Edmund Mortimer. Bolingbroke was never considered to be Richard's heir nor was he ever the Prince of Wales; he usurped the throne & skipped right over the Mortimer claim.

This was also not *an era when this was just beginning to happen*. Edward IVs marriage to Elizabeth Woodville took place in 1464. Bolingbroke's marriage to Mary de Bohun occurred in 1381. Almost all of William the Conqueror's descendents married into the French nobility. More than half of Edward IIIs 9 surviving offspring married into the English nobility; it's a primary cause of the WOTR with all those intertwined rival throne claims from their descendents. The Black Prince married Joan of Kent. Lionel of Antwerp's 1st wife was Elizabeth de Burgh, suo jure Countess of Ulster. 2 of John of Gaunt's 3 wives were Englishwomen (#1, Blanche of Lancaster & #3, Catherine Swynford). Edmund of Langley's 2nd wife was Joan Holland. Thomas of Woodstock married the other de Bohun heiress, Eleanor. Margaret married John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke. Despite the unsavoury association of Roger Mortimer with Edward IIs forced deposition & demise, Edward III also arranged for his 12 yo granddaughter Philippa of Clarence (whose father Lionel had died by then) to wed Roger's grandson Edmund Mortimer in 1368. All of EIIIs Mortimer, Beaufort, & York descendents then married into the nobility (except for the other Joan Beaufort who became Queen of Scotland). So did Bolingbroke's sister Elizabeth, twice, the 2nd time in a *scandalous* manner. Before that, 2 of Edward Is daughters, Joan & Elizabeth, & 2 of his sons, Thomas & Edmund, married into the nobility as well, as did their descendents (in whose number we can count the aforementioned Blanche, Joan of Kent, & Joan Holland). Before that, John did it, though he had it annulled for lack of issue (& a desire to wed elsewhere). His brother Geoffrey married Constance, suo jure Duchess of Brittany, which was then a part of the Angevin Empire & therefore Constance was considered to be of the English nobility.

It was not that uncommon of a practice for English royals to marry into prominent noble houses & had occurred many times before Bolingbroke wed Mary de Bohun. He was a Johnny-Come-Lately to the idea, being the product of such a union himself. As a widower king, he married Joanna of Navarre, who was his Queen Consort, not the late Mary. So yes, I *do* question its pertinence to Elizabeth Woodville's situation. If anything, it more closely resembled that of the Black Prince & Joan of Kent's marriage, as Joan was also a widow with children who was older than her spouse, the heir apparent.

That was a history review, not a tirade :-D Edits happen. *Mixing up Henrys* resulted in ID'ing Bolingbroke as a Prince of Wales, which was incorrect. ScarletRibbons (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We all make mistakes (one of my worst-ever on wikipedia was confusing the Cenotaph and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, which still embarrasses me). However, there is one important point which is that the article refers to kings "marrying their subjects", not "marrying their future subjects", which would be irrelevant in Elizabeth's case. Deb (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about coronation date

It's not the end of the world, but the coronation date of 26 May 1465 is confusing, because it is described as "Ascension Day" in the article. Ascension Day is the Thursday that falls on the 10th day before Pentecost (Whitsunday). Of course, 1465 was before the Gregorian (New Style) calendar came into being, but that does not appear to be a material issue because neither 26 May 1465 (Old Style) nor 26 May 1465 (extrapolated New Style) fell on a Thursday, according to the Wolfram Alpha math engine at www.wolframalpha.com. The current algorithm for determining the date of Easter was not in use in 1465; however, if the algorithm then in use produced the same result for 1465 as the algorithm currently in use, then 26 May 1465 (Old Style) would have been the Sunday after Ascension Day. It seems unlikely, however, that this would have been described as Ascension Day in the England of 1465, especially in relation to a queen who is described as being punctilious in matters of religious practice (possibly as a defense against the accusations of political enemies)? Therefore, one must ask what the source is for the date as being (i) "Ascension Day" and (ii) 26 May 1465. It is possible that the reliable source is Ascension Day and that the 26 May 1465 date is a later calculation. (I don't know whether, in 1465, they still would have used "vii. kal. jun." for 26 May.) -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

I'm inclined to agree with you, but here's a source that supports the article. However, this one says "the Sunday after Ascension Day", which would seem to be correct. Deb (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

And I see you've changed the article. Sorry for being a pedant, but it doesn't hurt to have the dates right. The Wolfram Alpha math engine is a good source for checking chronology. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC))

Never apologise for insisting on accuracy. We pride ourselves on trying to maintain it. Deb (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bob, Deb, I'm experiencing a similar issue. Louis I of Naples was crowned on Pentecost in 1352, but different sources give different dates. I've encountered 25 May and 27 May, while WolframAlpha gives 20 May as the date according to "extrapolated Gregorian calendar" and 12 May as the date according to Julian calendar ([1]). Which is it? Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Pentecost is always a Sunday, so I think 20 May must be correct (although we should probably make it clear which calendar we are referring to). Deb (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

One possibility is to give the date simply as Pentecost. While WolframAlpha is a great tool for fact-checking and weeding out factual inconsistencies between sources, there is a danger of crossing the line into original research. It looks like 26 May was a Sunday on the Julian calendar, and the calculation of Easter and Pentecost during the 14th century did not necessarily use the same algorithm we use today. Also, Pentecost Monday (Whitmonday) has been observed to as "Pentecost" (50th day), because it is 50 days after Easter. (I don't know if that was true in the 14th century, however.) -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

My apologies for serial commenting and unforgivable pedantry here, but I just had the chance to check a spreadsheet for calculating Easter and related dates, and it looks like the modern algorithm produces a date of 28 May (extrapolated Gregorian) or 20 May 1352 (Julian/Old Style) for Pentecost Sunday (Whitsunday) of 1352. The actual date celebrated in that year is not likely to be earlier than that, because Wolfram Alpha shows the Hebrew calendar date as being 6 Sivan, which is the date of the Jewish Pentecost (50 days after Passover). My understanding is that the algorithm used to calculate Easter in the 14th century was essentially similar to the algorithm used by modern Orthodox churches, which frequently produce dates a week later than the Western churches for Easter and Pentecost, but never earlier. A week later than 20 May 1352 (Julian/Old Style) would have been 27 May (Julian/Old Style) in 1352, which is within your range of 26-28 May. As a result, it appears entirely plausible for Pentecost Sunday (Whitsunday) of 1352 to have occurred on 27 May 1352 (Julian/Old Style), approximately corroborating your sources. To check that against a citable source, however, it would be necessary to examine records from that period, assuming such records exist. In addition, since it is possible that Pentecost Monday (Whitmonday) was also celebrated, a 28 May 1352 is not excluded. Thus, it may be safer to say "Pentecost" until someone finds a citation that does not amount to original research. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

Good point - though I feel sure someone with some authority (eg. the Church) ought to know the answer.Deb (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your effort! I agree, better safe than OR, so I specified it was Pentecost and mentioned the possible dates given by the sources. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Queen Consort's siblings

The third paragraph of the section "Queen Consort" contained the sentence "The marriages of her sisters to the sons of the earls of Kent, Essex and Pembroke had left no sign of unhappiness on the parts of the parties involved, nor did that of her sister, Catherine Woodville, to the queen's 11-year-old ward Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, though the duke stood with the Duke of Gloucester in opposition to the Woodvilles after the death of Edward IV."

I made a grammatical correction -- in the third paragraph, I changed the present tense "have left no sign" and "nor do that of her sister" to the past tense "had left" and "nor did". However, the phrase "left no sign of unhappiness on the parts of the parties involved" is oddly worded, and it's not entirely clear what this means. Was this a quote from a contemporary? If so it should be cited as such. If not, it seems inappropriately subjective -- less like an article on a historical figure and more like a recap from the TV series The White Queen. This is a subjective impression of mine, however, so I don't want to edit it without a second person agreeing.

It's a very subjective statement in the first place. Thank you for pointing it out! Deb (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elizabeth Woodville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054034/http://www.richard111.com/house_of_york.htm to http://www.richard111.com/house_of_york.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709203718/http://www.r3.org/basics/basic8.html to http://www.r3.org/basics/basic8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Woodville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718051721/http://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/general-information/historical-fun/queens-college/foundresses-and-patronesses/elizabeth-woodville to http://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/general-information/historical-fun/queens-college/foundresses-and-patronesses/elizabeth-woodville

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

In the aristocracy?

"At the time of her birth, her family was mid-ranked in the English aristocracy."

Her father was not a peer. Even after he married the widow of a royal, I doubt that he was regarded as anything higher than gentry, albeit with royal connections. I propose changing the sentence to "..in the English class system." Harfarhs (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, but I would just say "of middle rank", because the "class system" was less of a recognised thing then than it is now - it was more of a very strict hierarchy. Deb (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed, although I think it needs to be somewhat more explicit than just the words "of middle rank"—see what you think of this alteration I've just made. Harfarhs (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Sounds okay to me. Deb (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Beginning of tenure as Queen of England

It is stated that Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville married on 1 May 1464. However, as the marriage wasn't made public until the 14 September 1464 and Elizabeth wasn't honored as Queen at court until the 29 September 1464, shouldn't her tenure as Queen of England begin in September? Similarly, Anne Boleyn married Henry VIII on 14 November 1532 and 25 January 1533, but her tenure as Queen began only on 28 May 1533. --Edouard2 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. From where do you get the 29 September date, though? Surtsicna (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I found it on Alison Weir's Lancaster And York: The Wars of the Roses, see [blacklisted link removed]. I think Michaelmas is on 29 September, isn't it? --Edouard2 (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn is not a comparable case. When she "married" Henry VIII, his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was still recognised as legally valid. There could not be two Queens. It was only once Henry's marriage to Catherine was declared null and void and his previous marriage(s) to Anne were declared valid that Anne could be considered Queen. Here we just have a secret marriage of a King who was undoubtedly able to marry. One becomes a Queen when one marries a King, not when one is "honoured" as such. Proteus (Talk) 10:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that point, but I have another example: Henry VIII married Jane Seymour on 30 May 1536, when he had no other previous wives alive to contest her the title (Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn having already died), but he did not have her acknowledged as Queen of England until 4 June 1536. I'm not sure if Henry VIII's third marriage was secret (I think it was a rather discreet ceremony, not a secret one), but he did wait a bit before having her acknoweldged as Queen, albeit not as long as Edward IV did with his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. --Edouard2 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To me, "acknowledged" suggests recognition of a situation already in existence. I don't think it marks the point at which these people actually starting being Queen. Proteus (Talk) 12:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Being a king or a queen is not a biological fact. One is a queen when generally recognized as such. There have been women, both before and after Elizabeth Woodville, who were married to kings without being queens; Edith the Fair, Teresa Gil de Vidaure and Françoise d'Aubigné come to mind. If Elizabeth did not act as queen and nobody knew of the marriage, then surely it is misleading to give a precise date of the beginning of her queenship. I think the years should be enough in this case. Surtsicna (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Wives become Queens on the coronation; their marriage merely makes them wives. The fact that they are (usually) referred to as "Queen X" from the date of their marriage is purely a device of historians to save unnecessary complexity/ambiguity. For our purposes, though, we go by what the scholarship says, not what we think is best . ——Serial ^# 12:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Do the biographers of the couple specify the date when Elizabeth Woodville became queen? Surtsicna (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, she was crowned on 26 May 1465. (Per Hicks, ODNB)——Serial ^# 09:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Proteus on this. Changing the date without a published precedent would probably cause confusion. Deb (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Original portrait deleted and replaced

An older version of this article began with an image that appeared to be an original 15th century portrait. That image was deleted entirely from the article and replaced with a 19th century piece which is not, in my opinion, good enough to replace the original. 15th century English portraitures were far behind their Italian contemporaries, but the one of Elizabeth Woodville is actually quite good (a copy still exists on Wikipedia in Elizabeth of York's article). This 19th century image makes Elizabeth a lot less queenly and a lot more like the Virgin Mary. Woodville was Catholic, but not noted for her piety. Also, the 19th century version depicts her hair down, an unlikely circumstance at the time. Finally, Elizabeth's face in the 19th century looks like it was made-up by a 12-year-old girl who was just learning the ropes. If I had the skill to revert it, I would go ahead and start an editing war. I hope someone with more skill than I agrees and at least brings the original portrait back into the article SOMEWHERE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:C780:CD0:28FE:DB0B:717D:87D7 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know why these Agnes Strickland images are being used to replace more contemporary images. I've changed it to the image you pointed out. Thanks for noting this! History Lunatic (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)History Lunatic

February birth?

Some online genealogical sites give her birthdate as 3 February 1437. How does this square with our "possibly October"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If you read the note that follows the October possibility, you'll see that this conjecture is based on a pardon issued on 24 October 1437 for her parents marriage without the King's permission (Elizabeth's mum was Henry VI's aunt by her 1st marriage, and therefore needed royal permission to remarry), presuming the pardon was issued when their first child was born.

As for why some genealogical sites list a February date, you'd have to ask those who listed it. After 20+ years of working on genealogy, both royal and my own, I've learned the amount of misinformation out there is staggering, and after one person's mistake has been copied a dozen times people often assume it's fact. History Lunatic (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)History Lunatic

I did some quick searching to see if any of these sites listed a source for a 3 February birthdate. None did, but I found this gem, which is illustrative of how many mistakes get put out there: https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/4VDG-R57/lady-elizabeth-wayte-1437-1492 Oi. History Lunatic (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)History Lunatic

"Lady of Ireland"

I edited the infobox at the bottom of the article to include the title of "Lady of Ireland," as is seen on all other English queens, but for some reason it was taken down. Could someone please help clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlimitedlead (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from those other articles instead of added here. I don't think this title was in use. It is certainly not cited and I can find nothing, and I really do mean nothing, on the internet about it. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I Have never seen anything about Elizabeth Woodville, Queen of England ever being called "The Lady of Ireland", I've done a lot of research on her and her family and related families, because she's my 15th great grandmother. There might be some proof she was called "The Lady of Ireland", I just haven't seen it anywhere yet. 2600:6C5C:6800:E09:68D5:DD5E:71D9:9075 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A look at Google Books gives: -

1. "Bond by Alienor Queen of England and Lady of Ireland" (Eleanor of Castile).

2. "and of the noble queen his lady , Madame Philippa of Hainault, Queen of England, Lady of Ireland and Aquitaine" (Philippa of Hainault)

3. "Joan, by the Grace of God, Queen of England and France, and Lady of Ireland" (Joan of Navarre)

4. "the Queen Dowager of Henry V., who, during the minority of her son, granted charters, as Queen of England and France, and lady of Ireland." (Catherine of France)

5. "MARGARETE , by the grace of God , Quene of England and of France , and Lady of Ireland" (Margaret of Anjou)

6. "our dearest mother Elizabeth Queen of England and France and lady of Ireland" (Elizabeth Woodville)

7. "Elizabeth, by the same grace Queen of England and France, and Lady of Ireland" (Elizabeth of York).

8. "Princess Elizabeth, by the grace of God queen of England and of France, and lady of Ireland," (Elizabeth of York, again)

Alekksandr (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In light of the sources cited above, I propose to restore the references to 'Lady of Ireland' to the articles from which it has been deleted. Thoughts? Alekksandr (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Philippa Gregory

Since there is some controversy about Philippa Gregory's work and because she portrayed Elizabeth Woodville and Jacquetta of Luxembourg as genuine witches in her novels, is it wise to include her work in the "References" and "Further Reading" sections of this article. I understand that most of her novels are fiction, however, from what I've heard she presents them as at best historically informed and at worst historical fact/strong possibilities. As she's not the only author of The Women of the Cousins' War, can anyone attest to the quality of the work from the other authors? NocturnalAudax (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"My heart is set upon a lusty pin"

The paragraph starts by saying this is one of three Middle English poems attributed to female authors, so I have added the citation for that as well as naming the other poems. This does make the first sentence rather long so I'd be happy if anyone wanted to rejig things. I think if we're going to mention a fact like that (which is quite interesting & relevant) it's worth naming the other poems. I also changed "more commonly believed" to "also argued" because Barratt's compilation was republished in 2010 and still argues for Elizabeth Woodville as the author so I think the matter is not as settled as "more commonly believed" would suggest. I think it's more neutral this way. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)