#so what is the problem with contextualizing the classism *Elizabeth* faced and understanding *her* difficulties?

[wonder-worker]

people really do not know what they're talking about when it comes to Elizabeth Woodville's social status, huh?

[wonder-worker]

#yes Elizabeth was without a doubt considered too low-born to be queen#no she was not a commoner and nobody actually called her that during her life (so I'm not sure why people are claiming that they did?)#Elizabeth's social status was not a problem in itself; it was a problem in the context of queenship and marrying into royalty#Context is important in this and for literally everything else when it comes to analyzing history. Any discussion is worthless without it.#obviously pop culture-esque articles claiming that she was 'a commoner who captured the king's heart' are wrong; she wasn't#But emphasizing that ACTUALLY she was part of the gentry with a well-born mother and just leaving it at that as some sort of “GOTCHA!”#is equally if not more irresponsible and entirely irrelevant to discussions of the actual time period we're studying.#Elizabeth *was* considered unworthy and unacceptable as queen precisely because of her lower social status#her father and brother had literally been derided as social-climbers by Salisbury Warwick and Edward himself just a few years earlier#the Woodvilles' marriage prospects clearly reflected their status (and 'place') in society: EW herself had first married a knight and all#siblings married within the gentry to people of a similar status. compare that to the prestigious marriages arranged after EW became queen

#and no Elizabeth having a lower social status was not 'created' by propaganda against her; it fueled and shaped propaganda against her#that's a huge huge difference; it's irresponsible to conflate the two as I've seen a recent tumblr post do#like I said she was considered too low-born to be queen long before any of the propaganda Warwick Clarence or Richard put out against her#and the fact that Elizabeth was targeted on the basis of her social status was in itself novel and unprecedented#no queen before her was ever targeted in such a manner; Clearly Elizabeth was considered notably 'different' in that regard#(and was quite literally framed as the enemy and destroyer of 'the old royal blood of this realm' and all its actual 'inheritors' like..)

#ngl this sort of discussion always leaves a bad taste in my mouth#because it's not like England and France (et all) are at war or consider each other mortal enemies in the 21st century#both are in fact western european imperialistic nations who've been nothing but a blight to the rest of the world including my own country#yet academic historians clearly have no problem contextualizing the xenophobia that medieval foreign queens faced as products of their time#and sympathizing with them accordingly (Eleanor of Provence; Joan of Navarre; Margaret of Anjou; etc)(at least by their own historians)#Nor were foreign queens the “worst” targets of xenophobia: that was their attendants or in times of war commoners or soldiers#who actually had to bear the brunt of English aggression#queens were ultimately protected and guaranteed at least a veneer of dignity and respect because of their royal status#yet once again historians and people have no problem contextualizing and understanding their difficulties regardless of all this#so what is the problem with contextualizing the classism *Elizabeth* faced and understanding *her* difficulties?#why is the prejudice against her constantly diminished & downplayed? (Ive never even seen any historian directly refer to it as 'classism')#after all it was *Elizabeth* who was more vulnerable than any queen before her due to her lack of powerful foreign or national support#and Elizabeth who faced a form of propaganda distinctly unprecedented for queens. it SHOULD be emphasized more.

people really do not know what they're talking about when it comes to Elizabeth Woodville's social status, huh?