#is routledge making a biography of her? I remember reading it somewhere but I've lost track...if they are I really hope it's good

[wonder-worker]

I really dislike (the second half of) David Baldwin's biography of Elizabeth Woodville, tbh. It's the first modern biography of her, and probably the most "academic" one out there till date, but it's unfortunately heavily flawed.

He clearly dislikes Elizabeth's family and takes the "general unpopularity" of the Woodvilles as a given.

He has an oddly condescending view of Elizabeth as dowager queen, claiming that she was 'bound to surrender some of her former prominence and dignity' after Edward's death even though she was literally the new King's mother and contemporaries clearly believed that she would play a direct role in governing the realm during her son's minority. He also seems more amenable than not to the Ricardian conspiracy theory that Elizabeth was no longer one of her husband's executors (as she was in 1475) because she didn't meet with some of the executors on 7th May at Baynard Castle - because she was literally in sanctuary at that time and would not have been able to. This is despite the fact that the executors present there never once claimed that they were the only ones Edward appointed, and the presence of Buckingham among them, who Edward excluded from power during his reign, clearly meant that some of the men present there were lying (Richard of Gloucester had also not been named executor in 1475, btw). We know for a fact that after Edward's death, his council gathered around his queen for future policy decisions, a very clear testament to her continued - and unusual - prominence and importance.

Baldwin wrote that after Edward IV's death, "Elizabeth allegedly urged Rivers to bring the young King to bring the young King to London as quickly as possible and with as large a force as he could muster [...] There can be no doubt that Elizabeth wished to see her son crowned before anything could frustrate it." In Baldwin's view, it's only after Hastings expressed reluctance that she decided to act as a "peacemaker" instead. How on earth is this any different from what Ricardians have said about Elizabeth during this time?

He claimed that after Richard of Gloucester seized 12-year-old Edward V - against his will, I might add - "The Woodvilles [Elizabeth and Dorset] tried, unsuccessfully, to raise an army to recover the initiative", referring to her unpopularity as a reason for why she wasn't successful, and incorrectly states that both Croyland and Mancini refer to this. They don't - only Mancini does. Croyland, on the other hand, does not write of any Woodville attempt to raise arms, but does write that after Elizabeth sought sanctuary, adherents gathered under Westminster "in the queen's name". Mancini presents Elizabeth as aggressive and unpopular, Croyland presents her as understandably worried and supported.

He believed that Elizabeth of York genuinely wanted to marry her brother-vanishing uncle Richard III and quoted George Buck's letter on this.

Even worse, claimed that Elizabeth Woodville "approved and encouraged" her daughter in this, because she was "cynically hoping that a marriage between King Richard and her daughter would restore her [meaning EW] to her position at the centre of affairs". Like. Do I really need to say anything?

And lastly, he believed that Elizabeth genuinely plotted against Henry VII and her own daughter in Simnel's Rebellion due to her own desire for power and prominence, along with "resentment" towards Margaret Beaufort, and was subsequently imprisoned and deliberately depowered for it.

While Baldwin certainly gives credit and sympathy to his subject, his biography of Elizabeth during Richard's usurpation and Tudor rule is effectively no different from the way Ricardians and other general histories write about her. He is inconsistent, objectively incorrect, and never once questions the blatantly propagandic narratives (both misogynistic and classist) that were spread about her. Some of the things he said about her in his book "The Kingmaker's Sisters" aren't expecially great either, but I'll leave those out for now.

Again - this is the most academic biography of Elizabeth till date, and this is the crap it said about her. That's literally how bad historical studies of her have been till date.

This epitomizes another problem I have with most - tbh, pretty much all - of Elizabeth's historians. They focus primarily on contradicting post-contemporary rumours and accusations about her (Thomas Cook, the queen's gold, the Earl of Desmond's death, etc). It's understandable to an extent: these are "safer", less contrary, less disruptive. They probably won't offend most of their readers. But when it comes to actual contemporary accusations? Every single historian till date has been utterly lacking and disappointing. This applies to both Warwick's rebellions and Richard III's usurpation. They never question the fundamental narrative of 1483. If they do focus on propaganda, it's the more overt ones (eg: Richard's letter accusing Elizabeth of treasonable necromancy). And even then, they never acknowledge - let alone emphasize - the true extent of what was said about her, and how much of it was very unprecedented when it came to queens.

The greatest irony is that it's two of Richard III's historians - Rosemary Horrox and A.J Pollard - who have done a better job highlighting the extent of Ricardian propaganda (reflected by Mancini, an innocent newcomer, who unknowingly painted Elizabeth and her family as aggressors and Richard as a victim of circumstance forced to defend himself). Of course, while Horrox and Pollard analyzed this mainly from Richard's perspective, with very little attention given to Elizabeth herself, the mere acknowledgement is still somehow better than anything that any of Elizabeth's historians have ever done till date. That's a shame, tbh.