To
coincide with the publication of “Elizabeth of York; The Forgotten Tudor Queen,”
later this month, I invited questions about my biography, my views and anything
else relating to my work. Thank you for all the replies on the blog and
facebook page; the responses show just how much interest and knowledge there
already is out there about this fascinating lady. I think if I were to try and
answer all of them in as much detail as they deserve, I would end up rewriting
my book here on the blog. So, I’m not giving everything away but here is a
taster of what to expect in the biography- I hope it whets your appetite. If
you don’t see your question exactly as you wrote it, it’s because I’ve combined
questions whenever I’ve had several that are similar.
Elizabeth, by Victorian Artist Edward Corbould
Why
Elizabeth of York?
I’ve always been interested in Elizabeth; I think it
stemmed from my initial fascination with her children. If you’ve read about the
lives of Henry, Margaret and Mary Tudor, it seems logical to want to explore
their childhoods and the relationships they had with their parents. The children,
particularly Henry, were so colourful and charismatic; they had such a vitality
and majesty in everything they did, yet tradition had often presented their
parents as quieter, cautious and understated figures. I thought this was, in
part, due to their overshadowing by the next generation in modern popular works
and perhaps due to the infancy of their dynasty. Both were survivors and
throughout Henry VII’s reign, there was no guarantee that the turbulent decades
of their own youth were over. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Often, I see authors
drawing an imaginary line in the sand in 1485 (or 1487) and almost breathing a
sigh of relief but this was by no means a given at the time and I wonder how
much their descendants’ inimitable style and self-fashioning was borne out of
this early insecurity. Also, when I read the primary sources about Elizabeth’s
life and death, I was struck by just how popular she was and by the hints of
scandal associated with her name, so I wanted to find out more. I was keen to
move slightly away from the traditional biography style; on one level, this is
a narrative of the events of her life, but I’ve also taken a thematic approach.
I wanted to use Elizabeth to explore fifteenth century ideals of queenship and
judge what model she chose.
Why
does the book’s subtitle refer to her as a “forgotten” Queen?
Elizabeth is one of the least well known Tudor
Queens. Henry VIII’s wives and daughters have received a lot of attention, of
the popular and academic kind and, in comparison, Elizabeth is less well known.
Even in studies that explore the establishment of the Tudor dynasty, she is
something of a two-dimensional figure, a foot note or appendage in the story of
Henry VII. I have read a lot of books that simply repeat the same old “facts”
about her lineage and marriage but I still struggled to form a rounded picture
of her in my mind. Elizabeth’s problem is that she is such a convenient foil
for other people; she’s always presented as someone else’s daughter, wife or
mother, rarely just herself. Her image also obscures her; the long-standing mask
of her demure beauty and goodness has reduced her to something of a stereotype
and it is only recently that writers have started to challenge this. After all,
this was a real woman, with real emotions, who lived a passionate and turbulent
life. I wanted to try and dig her out of history’s margins and put her back in
the centre of the stage.
Margaret Beaufort, Elizabeth's devout and formidable mother-in-law
What
was her relationship with her mother-in-law Margaret Beaufort like? Were they
generally close? Did Margaret Beaufort resent her for having so much royal
blood or being from the House of York?
This is a
tricky one, because I think that today, we might judge relationships to be
successful according to different criteria than the Tudors. I do feel that
Margaret’s character has been massaged over the centuries into something of a
harridan. A few assumptions made by distant observers, like foreign
ambassadors, have been taken as gospel, like that Elizabeth was overshadowed by
Margaret, but these are only assumptions. Likewise, records of Margaret walking just
a pace behind the Queen and supposedly jostling with her for precedence only
reinforce what would have been the correct courtly protocol. Margaret’s claim
to the throne was as good as Elizabeth’s and they did often appear in tandem to
reflect this. Only one person knew how Elizabeth really felt about Margaret and
she did not commit it to paper. If we look at what we can deduce about the King’s
mother, she was clearly a dynamic, formidable, determined and energetic lady;
just the sort of woman you would want to have on your side. If Elizabeth did find her
at all “overbearing”- and this is a modern reaction- she may well have accepted
that, as it was balanced by the assistance Margaret was able to offer. Having an
experienced older woman at her side, particularly when she pregnant or in Henry’s
absence, may well have been reassuring. As for being “close,” again, this is
subjective and perhaps, a bit of a misnomer; in terms of the late medieval
impulse for survival and the need to forge alliances, Elizabeth and Margaret
found a sort of equilibrium that allowed them to be allies. I think their
mutual interest bound them together. Elizabeth was married to Margaret’s son.
She would have been pragmatic and wise enough to overcome any “dislike” she
felt for her daughter-in-law’s Yorkist roots. After all, Margaret’s marital
history had necessitated a good deal of diplomacy and “getting into bed with”
the enemy. It does seem that particularly for the women of the era, personal alliances
could overcome family loyalty, such as with Elizabeth Wydeville, who married a
Lancastrian, then a Yorkist King.
What was the relationship
between her Elizabeth and her mother? How did she cope with being separated
from her?
From what I can deduce, Edward IV and
Elizabeth Wydeville appear to have been loving parents and their children were
close, having been raised together at Greenwich. They eldest three girls shared
their mother’s sanctuary in 1470, when she gave birth in conditions of comparative
deprivation and fear, which may have united them through shared sufferings.
Later, in 1483, their flight again brought them together through a difficult
time and I suspect, Elizabeth as the eldest had been her mother’s support at
this time. The Princesses leaving their mother behind in sanctuary in March
1484 certainly constituted a significant separation but it was politically and
personally expedient to all concerned. They coped with this because they had
to, there wasn’t a lot of choice so I can only guess that they just tried to
put it out of their minds and carry on.
A copy of the 1538 Whitehall Mural, commissioned by Henry VIII,
featuring himself, Jane Seymour and his parents
Was there any kind of rift between mother and daughter when
Elizabeth was married to Henry Tudor and crowned Queen? From what I've read,
Elizabeth kept in close contact with the rest of her family, but not a lot of
contact with her mother is recorded. Do you think Elizabeth Woodville was
involved in any of the Yorkists plots after Bosworth and as a result her
daughter stayed away from her?
From looking
at the evidence I don’t think there was a rift. Also, the processes by which
such material is recorded and its survival over 500 years means that absence of
evidence can’t be taken as evidence itself. Elizabeth Wydeville had worked for
the match with Henry; she had no reason to fall out with her daughter about it.
Even if she believed one of her sons had survived, I’m not sure she would have
taken the risk to plot against the new regime. Henry VII may have privately distrusted
her but he referred to her as his “beloved” mother-in-law and wanted her and
Elizabeth with him before the Battle of Stoke. I remain to be convinced that
Elizabeth would have schemed against her daughter and grandchildren. The
York-Tudor marriage was the best possible outcome for her and to jeopardise
this would have been foolish. Her stay in Bermondsey Abbey, between 1487-1492,
and the reduction of her income, has been interpreted as a form of imprisonment
but what if it was done voluntarily, even willingly? At fifty, Elizabeth Wydeville
had lived a turbulent life; been widowed twice, outlived many of her children,
feared for her life, fled into sanctuary and seen the wheel of fortune turn through
many cycles. She had been a devout Catholic all her life and may have been ill
in her final years. Perhaps she chose to retire and spend her years in
contemplation, as many widows of the era did, recognising that she had achieved
all she could and happy that her daughter was now on the throne. Not a lot of
contact with her daughter is recorded, yet Bermondsey Abbey stood just over the
Thames from the Tower, hardly any great distance away. I’ve not yet seen any
evidence to support an estrangement but I am always open to new material. I
have a lot more to say in the book about Elizabeth Wydeville’s reputation and
the judgements made by historians about her character.
The earliest surviving portrait of Richard III c1520,
a copy of a lost original
What
do you think about the supposed relationship between Elizabeth of York and
Richard III?
Without giving too much away here, I will just say
that there are two sources that I think need to be re-evaluated. Quite a lot of
theories have been built on very slender evidence, which is fine for historical
fiction and helps bring the characters and the times to life. And, after all,
when evidence is lacking, imagination and empathy have to fill the gap. When
aiming at strict factual accuracy, though, I think the historian can only look
at what is known rather than trying to interpret sources according to how these
individuals “may have felt.” Equally,
this can’t be ruled out automatically just because it is offensive or
incomprehensible to the “modern mind”, if such a universal concept exists! It
does appear that some of Richard and Elizabeth’s contemporaries believed in his
intention to marry his niece and weren’t happy about it: twelve doctors of
divinity were summoned by Parliament in order to put forward their objections
and Richard later issued a complete public denial that this had ever been his
intention. However, as with all these figures, the gulf between the public
persona and the private sentiment can only be guessed at.
Henry Tudor, whom Elizabeth married in January 1486
Was
she ever really in love with Richard III or Henry Tudor?
I don’t know if Elizabeth’s position allowed her the
luxury of love. While there are many notable exceptions, particularly her own
parents and son, the companionate marriage was a later phenomenon and duty
often had to override personal inclination. I’m not denying Elizabeth’s
humanity or capacity for love but maybe she approached these men in a different
way. What constitutes love? It may be as different for individuals then as it
is today. Perhaps part of these men’s attraction lay in the role and status
they could offer: they had the whole package, including the crown. This doesn’t
mean Elizabeth was mercenary but that she made shrewd alliances which were
appropriate to her own status. From what I’ve read, I believe her marriage with
Henry was a successful one, with them working in a partnership and being united
at time of danger and grief. Her pulse may not have raced when he came into the
room but their mutual goals kept them close; what was good for one was good for
the other. Henry’s reaction to Elizabeth’s death also suggests genuine grief.
Do
you think Elizabeth was forbidden from seeing Perkin Warbeck, as is often
claimed, or whether she chose not to see him?
I have often
pictured Elizabeth taking a sneaky peek out of a window at Sheen Palace in 1497
to get a glimpse of Perkin! I think the answer to this depends upon what she
knew about the fates of her brothers. If she had incontrovertible evidence of
their deaths, she may have chosen not to see him. If there was any doubt in her
mind about their survival, I think she would have tried to have a look at this
young man who claimed to be her close relation. His activities may have stirred
up past grief but with so many deaths and losses in her life, I don’t think it
would have necearily destabilized her to see him. The notion of Henry
forbidding Elizabeth to see Perkin doesn’t sit comfortably with the impression
I have formed of their marriage. Do we know for certain that she never saw him,
at any time? He seems to have been quite publicly paraded about.
Bust of Henry VIII as a child
I've watched the BBC miniseries, "The Shadows of the
Tower" which covers the reign of Henry VII. In the episode when Elizabeth
gives birth to Prince Arthur, Margaret Tudor and Henry repeatedly fret about
Elizabeth being "delicate". Alternatively, I've heard about her
becoming increasingly sick after increasingly difficult pregnancies. Is there
any truth to this? I consider this quite interesting in light of the fact that
Henry VIII supposedly inherited his height and athleticism from her side of the
family.
Elizabeth
bore seven (possibly eight) children over a period of eighteen years and died
as a result of her last live birth. There does not seem to be much evidence to
suggest she was “delicate” before her marriage and her first pregnancy and
delivery in 1486 appear to have been straightforward. However, she did suffer
from an “ague” or fever, afterwards, which delayed her churching. She did not
conceive again, so far as we know, for two and a half years. Perhaps this was
the couple being cautious regarding her health or complications that arose as a
result.
Concern emerged again in 1500, when she was pregnant
with Edmund, although the nature of this is unknown and may have related to her
advancing age. The more children a woman bore, the greater the risk of
experiencing some sort of complication and the more severe the toll on her
body, which was not getting any younger. At least two of her babies were born
close together, with Elizabeth conceived only 3 months after she had borne
Henry in 1491, so her body can hardly have had much chance to recover before
the process began all over again. While the demands of childbirth clearly left
their mark, with one foreign ambassador remarking that by 1501 she had become a
little stout, I would be inclined to place her experiences within the “normal”
bracket for women of the time. It would be more unusual if she had seen through
seven confirmed pregnancies through to term and not had some sort of
difficulties.
Something
clearly went wrong with her last birth, though. Her death in 1503, over a week
after bearing Katherine, suggests a postpartum infection, but her labour
started early, catching her by surprise while she was at the Tower, where she
had not intended to deliver. When something went badly wrong, as it clearly did
in 1503, the midwives did not have the skill or knowledge to save her.
Yes, Henry VIII was reputed to look like Edward IV
but of course these things can skip a generation and the transference of genes
is notoriously complex. We do know that, later in life, Henry referred to his
mother’s death as a tragedy and her influence was undoubtedly missed.
The tomb of Henry VII and Elizabeth, in Westminster by Torrigiano
Do you think Elizabeth was forced or chose to be
"apolitical" Queen Consort?
Elizabeth would have been aware of
three models of queenship before her own succession. Margaret of Anjou was generally
distrusted as being “warlike” and aggressive, Elizabeth Wydeville for
haughtiness and nepotism, while Anne Neville’s lack of fecundity could have led
to problems. (These are summaries of “common fame” rather than my view of them.)
Henry was very keen to stress that his claim to the throne was independent of
his marriage and did not require Elizabeth’s validation, so I don’t think he
would have welcomed her taking a public role in politics. I think Elizabeth
very wisely followed the model of Queenship put forward in some fifteenth
century texts that we know she had access to, like Christine de Pisan and
Caxton’s A Game of Chess. These advocated an ideal queen whose sphere of
influence was more domestic or behind the scenes. Elizabeth’s influence over
Henry was of a personal nature, as a helpmeet and confidant, and through the
charitable and religious offices of her household. She was a softer, more accessible
side of queenship, a maternal figure who was sympathetic to supplicants and balanced
the “war-like” masculine component of government. I think this was a very
sensible decision that suited them both.
Elizabeth's wooden funeral effigy which topped her coffin in 1503
How
do you cope with motherhood and writing, do you have a routine?
It's
a wonderful achievement to have three books published within one year! How many
months/years have you worked on each and how many hours a week?
Thank you. I can’t say it has been easy! When I
wrote In Bed with the Tudors, I was pregnant, had a toddler running round me
and hadn’t had an unbroken night’s sleep in almost three years! Then, I gave
birth in the middle of writing Elizabeth of York, the Forgotten Tudor Queen.
The funny thing is though, this actually helped focus me. Before I had my
children, when I had more time to write and research, I was less disciplined
about it. Now that I had my sons’ needs to see to and impending deadlines, I
had to extract every minute I could and make the most of it. I often stay up to
write after they are in bed and my husband is very supportive, looking after
our eldest son, so it is easier for me to get some work done. It’s hard
sometimes to balance it all but we do make sure we got quality family time
together whenever we can. I don’t follow a pattern or set hours of work, I just
do whatever I can whenever I can. I do believe in the notion that “the journey
of a thousand miles begins with a single step” and have treated each day as a
single step, completing one paragraph here and another there, whenever and
wherever! I have produced three books in a relatively short space of time but
they are the culmination of years of reading and research. I did my MA in
1995-6 and have carried on reading and studying independently since then. I
consider myself to be a continuing student of history and try to approach the
past with an open mind and no particular agenda beyond my own interest. I am
always open to persuasion and new sources or interpretations.
I have also received a number of questions relating to Anne
Neville, but as this has turned into a bit of an epic post, I will hold on to
them and do a separate question and answer session prior to the release of my
biography on her, this April.
Thank
you to Susan Abernethy, Susan Higginbotham, Suzanne Israel Tufts, Geoff
Licence, Sylwia S Zupanec, Debra Al-Bayani and Anonymous for your interesting
and well informed questions.
