#ie: We can recognize their genuine division AND question the (false/unfair) problematic narrative around the Woodvilles. Nuance is the key. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

wonder-worker · 4 months ago

Text

"The division between the two families [the Woodvilles and the Nevilles] and their allies can be seen in the royal charters that they witnessed. Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville of York, while serving as chancellor and afterwards, were fairly constant witnesses to royal charters and consequently often appeared together. This was not, however, the case for other family members and friends. From 1466 to 1469, if Scales or Woodville associates like Sir John Fogge, John Lord Audley or Humphrey Lord Stafford of Southwick witnessed royal charters, then members of the Neville group, such as John Neville, earl of Northumberland, or John Lord Wenlock would not, and vice versa. Discounting the ubiquitous Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville, of the twenty-four charters issued between February 1466 and June 1469, twelve were witnessed by men associated with the Woodvilles, eight by men associated with the Nevilles and two were witnessed by no member of either group beyond the two earls at their heads and the archbishop; only two charters, both from 1466, featured associates of both families.

Such striking segregation of witnesses suggests that something more than simple convenience or availability was at play. [...] The evidence of these witness lists does show the extent of the split between the two groups from early in Edward's [first] reign and of the need for political society to work with that cleavage in the heart of the Yorkist regime."

— Theron Westervelt, "Royal charter witness lists and the politics of the reign of Edward IV"

*This is specifically applicable for Edward IV's first reign; in contrast, the charters in his second reign displayed a great deal of aristocratic and domestic unity and cohesion.

#the woodvilles #edward iv #wars of the roses #richard neville 16th earl of warwick #my post #elizabeth woodville #Obviously I hate the idea of Elizabeth and her family being seen as a social-climbing invasive species who banished the old nobility and #drove Warwick/Richard into rebellion and dominated the government and controlled the king and were responsible for Everything Wrong Ever #but I also dislike the 'revisionist' idea that they were ACTUALLY just passive and powerless bystanders or pawns who kept to their #social “place” (whatever the fuck that means). Frankly speaking this is more of a diminishment than a realistic defense.#the 'Queen's kin' (as they were known at the time) were very visible at court and demonstrably influential and prominent in politics #and as this shows there DOES seem to have been a genuine division/conflict between them and the Nevilles during Edward's first reign #(which DID directly lead to the decline of Neville dominance in England though the maintained honored positions and influence of their own)#Especially since Edward's second reign was entirely void of any such divisions - instead the nobility were united and focused on the King #even Clarence and Gloucester's long and disruptive quarrel over the Warwick inheritance never visibly left its mark on charters #so the Woodville/Neville divide from the 1460s must have been very sharp and divisive indeed #And yes it's safe to say that Elizabeth Woodville was probably involved: whether in her own right or via support of her family - or both -#it's illogical to argue that she was uninvolved (even the supportive Croyland Chronicle writes that Edward was “too greatly influenced”#by her; she and her family worked together across the 1470s; she was the de-facto head in 1483; etc)#Enhanced by the fact that Elizabeth was the first Englishwoman to be crowned queen - meaning that the involvement of her #homeborn family marked the beginning of “a new and largely unprecedented factor in the English power structure” (Laynesmith)#This should be kept in mind when it comes to analyzing contemporary views of them and of Elizabeth's own anomalous position #HOWEVER understanding the complexity of the situation at hand doesn't mean accepting the traditionally vilified depiction of the Woodvilles #Warwick and the Nevilles remained empowered and (at least outwardly) respected by the regime #Whether he was driven by disagreements over foreign policy or jealousy or ambition - the decision to rebel was very much his own #Claiming that the Woodvilles were primarily responsible is ridiculous (and most of the nobility continued to support Edward regardless)#There's also the fact that Warwick took what was probably a basic factional divide and turned it into a misogynistic and classist narrative #of a transgressive “bad” woman who became queen through witchcraft and aggrandized a family of social-climbing “lessers” who replaced #the inherently more deserving old nobility and corrupted the realm - later revived and intensified by Richard III a decade later #ie: We can recognize their genuine division AND question the (false/unfair) problematic narrative around the Woodvilles. Nuance is the key.

11 notes · View notes