17 thoughts on “WCW: Elizabeth Woodville

  1. Although there were rumors that Richard III intended to divorce his wife and marry Elizabeth of York, daughter of Elizabeth Woodville, he never actually did so. Elizabeth of York married Henry Tudor, who became Henry VII.

    1. I was about to say- Richard III was married to Anne Neville, and there were rumors that after her death he wanted to marry Elizabeth of York, but that didn’t happen – she married Henry VII.

    2. There were no contemporary rumours that Richard III wanted to divorce Anne Neville. It seems to be a rumour started by the Tudors, who had reason to blacken his name. It wouldn’t have made sense for him, because it would actually have been an annulment, which would have made his son illegitimate.
      From contemporary accounts, Richard was devoted to his wife and son, and after they both died, he appeared to lose heart. There were negotiations for him to marry a foreign princess after Anne died, but Bosworth intervened. Richard might well have given up by that point.

      1. Alison Weir seems to believe it for some idiotic reason or another, and is even convinced that Elizabeth slept with him. It sounds silly, but I have to admit that’s when I lost all faith in her as a historian.

    3. There’s no evidence at all that he ever contemplated such a thing. It would have been completely mad: not only because of course it would be a shocking thing to do, requiring a full papal dispensation, but because it would have undermined his whole claim to the throne, which depended on the proposition that Elizabeth and all her siblings were illegitimate.

      After the death of his much-loved wife Richard opened negotiations to marry Joan, the Princess of Portugal, and also to marry Elizabeth off to Manuel, heir presumptive to Portugal. It seems that someone, either ignorantly or deliberately, misunderstood this dual proposition.

  2. Poor Elizabeth Woodville got the blame for every unpopular thing Edward IV did, a common trope. In fact except for an understandable desire to advance her numerous siblings she doesn’t seem to have been very political.
    It is highly likely that it was Edward’s decision to advance his Woodville in laws as a counterbalance to over mighty subjects like Warwick. Edward clearly regarded his father and brothers in law as persons he could trust.

    1. Is that Elizabeth Woodville or Galadriel in the White Princess? Please to clarify.

    2. Which was perfectly true, for the simple reason that he and his favour were their only claim to power, wealth and influence: they needed him, and after his death they would need to protect his heir, who would be their kinsman. If he were to turn against them they’d instantly be toast, and they knew it.

      1. Similar to the Tudor strategy of promoting social climbers who would be dependent on them, as seen with Empson and Dudley, Wolsey, Cromwell, and the Cecils, among others.

  3. I remain of the opinion The White Queen (2013) isn’t worth the time of day – they couldn’t even be arsed to do a decent production.

    I do love Richard III (1995). I think it’s my favourite Shakespeare adaptation that retains the prose but changes the time/setting. (Kurosawa’s Shakespeare adaptations, though brilliant, only liberally borrow the story – Ran especially – so they’re kind of in a separate category.) Just ingenious. And having the great Annette Bening’s take be inspired by Wallis Warfield Simpson is an excellent touch.

  4. I have only seen Elizabeth Woodville portrayed in Olivier’s 1955 Richard III. I think I might have to look up the modernized 1995 version. As much as I adore Essie Davis, I don’t think I can bring myself to watch The White Princess (isn’t that another Phillipa Fuckin’ Gregory one?)

    1. The White Princess is one of the worst things I’ve ever seen. The show runners made up even more nonsense that even Philippa Gregory has distanced herself from it.

  5. I wish there were more photos from the Wars of the Roses production, those costumes in the poster look promising!

  6. Elizabeth’s sons, the two princes, were dead long before Henry set foot back in England, and despite a recent vogue for pretending otherwise, it’s exceptionally likely that it was Richard III who had them disposed of, not Henry Tudor.

      1. Sure, I was just correcting the factual error in the original post that it was Henry that usurped them and not Richard. It was definitely Richard.

Comments are closed.