#which meant that Elizabeth - like H8's wives after her - was in a far more precarious position than sonless foreign royal queens before her

[wonder-worker]

Is it true that Elizabeth of York birth celebrated like she was a son? I have seen some historians say this.

Hi! Yes, Edward IV did celebrate his daughter’s birth as though she was a male heir (“a prince”), iirc as per the Great Chronicle.

While we have no contemporary reports at the time of Elizabeth of York's birth, we know that Luchino Dallaghiexia reported that the birth of Edward and Elizabeth's third child, Cecily of York, "rejoiced the king and all the nobles exceedingly*, though they would have preferred a son'. Wanting a son (ie: an heir) was typical for their time period, likely enhanced by Edward and Elizabeth's unprecedentedly controversial marriage, her very unsuitable origins and his own status as a usurper. The fact that he was described as being "exceedingly" delighted at the birth of his third daughter in a row regardless does support the claim that he would have gone over-the-top to celebrate the birth of his first legitimate** child.

Hope this helps!

*Bizarrely, I have seen several historians and blogs using Dallaghiexia's letter to claim that he was bitterly disappointed at Cecily of York's birth. I don't understand how historical reading comprehension can be so poor that "rejoiced the king exceedingly" has somehow been rewritten as the...exact opposite of that. With no self-awareness whatsoever. **His illegitimate daughter Margaret (known as Elizabeth for some reason) was almost definitely born before his marriage. We don't know the birth dates of his other two illegitimate children: I think the likeliest conception date for Arthur was in early 1470, but it's unverified; and we know nothing about Grace (which was in fact her surname, not her name) other than the fact that Elizabeth Woodville seems to have been very attached to her.

[boopaloop52]

#elizabeth of york#edward iv#queue#speaking of which#did I mention how much I dislike historians who state that one of Elizabeth Woodville's 'advantages' was that 'she was fertile'#and just leave it at that?#or dumbfuck Anne Boleyn stans who argue Elizabeth was 'safe' because she had a son (she was literally deposed twice but okay)#That is simply incorrect and a complete erasure of her actual - presumably difficult - experiences#Elizabeth literally 'failed' (so to speak) to have a son throughout her first queenship#She had three daughters back-to-back#Her first son with Edward IV was in fact born seven years into her marriage after her husband had already been deposed and in exile#It does her an incredibly disservice to rewrite her very complicated situation according to your own whims and fancies#Particularly considering the very unusual nature of her marriage and rise to queen (+Edward's own status as an usurper)#which meant that Elizabeth - like H8's wives after her - was in a far more precarious position than sonless foreign royal queens before her#And while the lack of a son clearly didn't affect her personal marriage (her husband celebrated their eldest daughter's birth#as though she was a male heir and was described as exceedingly happy at the time of their third daughter's birth;#they decided to go on a pilgrimage - presumably to ask for a son - *together*; etc)#That doesn't change the fact that they were in a very very difficult situation that having a son could have resolved/legitimized#Worries that may have intensified even more after 1469 when George of Clarence (second York brother) rebelled against Edward#I also suspect their lack of a son affected the nature of Warwick's propaganda against them during his rebellions#but that's a whole other topic of discussion#Either way: What we should never do is erase and rewrite Elizabeth's (and Edward's) very complex situation in the 1460s#in favor of an inaccurate but more 'convenient' alternate history#It's a little odd tbh because I HAVE seen such discussions for Anne of Bohemia; Margaret of Anjou; and Henry VIII's wives#who all struggled to have male heirs#But for some reason Elizabeth's situation is not even acknowledged - let alone discussed#funny how that happens#anyway#ik I went VERY off track I'm sorry about that

<-op

Is it true that Elizabeth of York birth celebrated like she was a son? I have seen some historians say this.

Hi! Yes, Edward IV did celebrate his daughter’s birth as though she was a male heir (“a prince”).

While we have no contemporary reports at the time of Elizabeth of York's birth, we know that Luchino Dallaghiexia reported that the birth of Edward and Elizabeth's third child, Cecily of York, "rejoiced the king and all the nobles exceedingly*, though they would have preferred a son'. Wanting a son (ie: an heir) was typical for their time period, likely enhanced by Edward and Elizabeth's unprecedentedly controversial marriage, her very unsuitable origins and his own status as a usurper. The fact that he was described as being "exceedingly" delighted at the birth of his third daughter in a row regardless does support the claim that he would have gone over-the-top to celebrate the birth of his first legitimate** child.

Hope this helps!

*Bizarrely, I have seen several historians and blogs using Dallaghiexia's letter to claim that he was bitterly disappointed at Cecily of York's birth. I don't understand how historical reading comprehension can be so poor that "rejoiced the king exceedingly" has somehow been rewritten as the...exact opposite of that. With no self-awareness whatsoever. **His illegitimate daughter Margaret (known as Elizabeth for some reason) was almost definitely born before his marriage. We don't know the birth dates of his other two illegitimate children: I think the likeliest conception date for Arthur was in early 1470, but it's unverified; and we know nothing about Grace (which was in fact her surname, not her name) other than the fact that Elizabeth Woodville seems to have been very attached to her.