#Croyland wrote that 'The counsellors of the king - now deceased - were present with the queen' so yes | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

wonder-worker · 2 months ago

Text

"As for the government of the kingdom, [Edward V] had complete confidence in the peers of realm and the queen."

"According to the Crowland continuator, [Elizabeth Woodville] seems to have taken the king's place in listening to his council immediately after Edward IV's death. It does appear that she expected to have some role in her son's kingship, and the Crowland continuator’s report of the letters sent to her by [Richard of Gloucester] indicates that she had good reason to expect to be able to work with him and the other councillors: 'the duke of Gloucester wrote the most pleasant letters to console the queen; he promised to come and offer submission, fealty and all that was due from him to his lord and king, Edward V, the first-born son of his brother the dead king and the queen'."

"[However], in what was Gloucester's first coup, Edward V was separated from his household and Woodville advisors. When the young king questioned the move, Buckingham was reported to have told the boy 'It is not in the business of women but men to govern kingdoms'. The blunt remark referred to the authority of Elizabeth Woodville as queen and the power she must have anticipated within the new political climate left by Edward IV's sudden death [...] While the veracity of this scene is questionable*, the words attributed to the duke no doubt seemed plausible to Dominic Mancini who believed they exemplified the popular sentiment held by men [...]."

-Dominic Mancini, The Usurpation of Richard the Third / J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503 / Alexander R. Brondarbit, Power Brokers and the Yorkist State, 1461-1485

*One of Mancini's key sources seems to have been Edward V's own doctor, John Argentine, who attended to him in the Tower. It's very likely that he was the one who recounted this scene to Mancini, which suggests that it should probably be considered more credible than not.

#historicwomendaily #elizabeth woodville #wars of the roses #15th century #english history #my post #Croyland wrote that 'The counsellors of the king - now deceased - were present with the queen' so yes #He clearly seemed to view Elizabeth as taking on Edward's role after his death #Which is striking since her son - the new King - hadn't even arrived in London yet let alone be crowned #It's also interesting that Richard wrote letters to *her* rather than the rest of the council and that she was the final deciding authority #when it came to her son (she was the one who wrote to him for his military escort) - it's a clear indication of who was seen as important #This is also reflected in 16th century chronicles like the claim that the Archbishop of York gave Elizabeth the Great Seal #We don't know if this is true - the Archbishop was definitely opposed to Richard but More may have embellished or invented the story #But either way it reflects the perception that Elizabeth would have a major role in the realm's governance during her son's minority #Which makes sense as Edward V would have been used to his mother governing for him as part of his council his whole life #It's also interesting to compare the impression we get of Elizabeth's role with that of former kings' mothers in late medieval England #Because that can help us understand her activities (and perception of them) within proper context rather than purely in isolation #From what I understand kings' mothers could be very influential (eg: Joan of Kent) but were almost never visibly/directly associated #with the governance of the realm. It's striking that the most extreme and arguably the only exception - Isabella of France - assumed #her unofficial regent-like role only after literally deposing the former King aka her husband in the most atypical situation imaginable #So it's striking that Elizabeth *was* visibly and directly associated with it despite her situation being entirely standard; despite the #lack of precedents; and despite the physical absence of her son. Especially since she was effectively the king's mother for only 20 days #I do think it's possible to argue that it says something about her power as queen #(Edward *did* give her unusual positions of authority either way) and may also suggest a more direct personality on her part #It may also explain why historians were/are so readily prepared to believe that she wanted to 'usurp the sovereignty' to quote George Buck #Ofc this is my interpretation based on my (limited) knowledge - feel free to correct me

17 notes · View notes