Talk:Elizabeth Woodville

message: Encyclopedia Britannica gives date of death 7/8 June 1492. But http://www.britannia.com/bios/ewoodville.html gives it as 26th May 1465 at Bermondsey Abbey, Surrey, which seems quite spacific. User:Maxx
*Also quite wrong, she certainly lived well beyond 1465. Everyking 14:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The 26th May 1465 was the date of her coronation, not her death. History Lunatic (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: "later known as "Warwick the Kingmaker" because of the part he played on putting Edward on the throne and afterwards replacing him with Henry VI"
This is wrong. The rest of the article, and the historic record, indicate that Henry was king before Edward, not after
208.54.14.120 (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs edit here, backwords timeline 

message: There seem to be enough Earls and Dukes as well as the House of Luxembourg in her family, nobility please! Eddaido (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Meaning that some of her ancestors are peers and continental nobles. That doesn't make her noble/a peer. See commoner. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Elizabeth Woodville is regarded by historians as the first commoner English queen consort. This was what angered Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick as he'd hoped to marry Edward to a French princess.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree.Deb (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commoner? 

message: I removed this paragraph from the article:
"Recent research has revealed that Elizabeth and her siblings were not quite the lowborn commoners that so many suppose being of the English Blood Royal themselves. It starts with King John whose daughter Eleanor married Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester founder of the English Parliament. Following the Battle of Evesham their son Guy finally ended up in Italy where he married Margherita Aldobrandesca their elder daughter Anastasia going on to marry Romano Orsini. Romano, Vicar-General of Rome at the time, was a member of the Orsini family the leading family in Rome being purveyors of Popes and Cardinals as well as both descendants and ancestors of the Royal Family. Romano’s great-granddaughter Sueva married Francesco del Balzo (aka François de Baux) both mentioned under Ancestry. Their daugher Margherita (aka Marguerite de Baux) married Pierre de Luxembourg Comte de St Pol their daughter Jacquette going on to marry Sir Richard Woodville."
My reasons for removing it are:
#I am not aware that anyone has ever suggested that Elizabeth Woodville was "lowborn".
#The rest of the first sentence is ambiguous - at first I read it as meaning that the "so many" who allegedly "suppose" this are the ones who are "of the English Blood Royal" (whatever that means) "themselves".  However, on reading it again, I think the author may have intended to mean that the Woodvilles had English royal blood, which is I believe undisputed.  
#The next two sentences are an unpunctuated, virtually incomprehensible mess.
#The fourth sentence is irrelevant as well as being badly-written.
#No wikilinks.
#The whole paragraph is completely unreferenced.
:Deb (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Deb (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Caveat lector

message: Why is it that QEI and QEII are so numbered?  Why is this not QEI, anf they II ans III respectively?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.63.207 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for a start, I'm not sure she was the first English queen called Elizabeth (though she seems to be according to Queen Elizabeth). But the reason she doesn't get to be numbered is that she was a queen consort, not a queen regnant. In other words, she was the wife of the monarch, not the monarch herself, unlike Elizabeth I. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, she was the first English queen called Elizabeth. The only other English queen consort named Elizabeth was this Elizabeth's daughter. One would imagine that the name was much more popular among royalty. Anyway, Paul is right. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was also the much more recent Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, just to be pedantic! Paul B (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To be very pedantic, she was a British (rather than English) queen ;) Surtsicna (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought that England and Scotland were still in some nominal sense separate realms, even after the Act of Union, but it seems you are right, she was officially styled "Queen of Great Birtain". Paul B (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Queen of Great Birtain'... is that John Birt's wife...?  Basket Feudalist  13:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Title 

message: It's not the end of the world, but the coronation date of 26 May 1465 is confusing, because it is described as "Ascension Day" in the article. Ascension Day is the Thursday that falls on the 10th day before Pentecost (Whitsunday). Of course, 1465 was before the Gregorian (New Style) calendar came into being, but that does not appear to be a material issue because neither 26 May 1465 (Old Style) nor 26 May 1465 (extrapolated New Style) fell on a Thursday, according to the Wolfram Alpha math engine at www.wolframalpha.com. The current algorithm for determining the date of Easter was not in use in 1465; however, if the algorithm then in use produced the same result for 1465 as the algorithm currently in use, then 26 May 1465 (Old Style) would have been the Sunday after Ascension Day. It seems unlikely, however, that this would have been described as Ascension Day in the England of 1465, especially in relation to a queen who is described as being punctilious in matters of religious practice (possibly as a defense against the accusations of political enemies)? Therefore, one must ask what the source is for the date as being (i) "Ascension Day" and (ii) 26 May 1465. It is possible that the reliable source is Ascension Day and that the 26 May 1465 date is a later calculation. (I don't know whether, in 1465, they still would have used "vii. kal. jun." for 26 May.) -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with you, but  here's a source that supports the article. However, this one says "the Sunday after Ascension Day", which would seem to be correct. Deb (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And I see you've changed the article. Sorry for being a pedant, but it doesn't hurt to have the dates right. The Wolfram Alpha math engine is a good source for checking chronology. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Never apologise for insisting on accuracy.  We pride ourselves on trying to maintain it. Deb (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Bob, Deb, I'm experiencing a similar issue. Louis I of Naples was crowned on Pentecost in 1352, but different sources give different dates. I've encountered 25 May and 27 May, while WolframAlpha gives 20 May as the date according to "extrapolated Gregorian calendar" and 12 May as the date according to Julian calendar (). Which is it? Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Pentecost is always a Sunday, so I think 20 May must be correct (although we should probably make it clear which calendar we are referring to). Deb (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One possibility is to give the date simply as Pentecost. While WolframAlpha is a great tool for fact-checking and weeding out factual inconsistencies between sources, there is a danger of crossing the line into original research. It looks like 26 May was a Sunday on the Julian calendar, and the calculation of Easter and Pentecost during the 14th century did not necessarily use the same algorithm we use today. Also, Pentecost Monday (Whitmonday) has been observed to as "Pentecost" (50th day), because it is 50 days after Easter. (I don't know if that was true in the 14th century, however.)  -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for serial commenting and unforgivable pedantry here, but I just had the chance to check a spreadsheet for calculating Easter and related dates, and it looks like the modern algorithm produces a date of 28 May (extrapolated Gregorian) or 20 May 1352 (Julian/Old Style) for Pentecost Sunday (Whitsunday) of 1352. The actual date celebrated in that year is not likely to be earlier than that, because Wolfram Alpha shows the Hebrew calendar date as being 6 Sivan, which is the date of the Jewish Pentecost (50 days after Passover). My understanding is that the algorithm used to calculate Easter in the 14th century was essentially similar to the algorithm used by modern Orthodox churches, which frequently produce dates a week later than the Western churches for Easter and Pentecost, but never earlier. A week later than 20 May 1352 (Julian/Old Style) would have been 27 May (Julian/Old Style) in 1352, which is within your range of 26-28 May. As a result, it appears entirely plausible for Pentecost Sunday (Whitsunday) of 1352 to have occurred on 27 May 1352 (Julian/Old Style), approximately corroborating your sources. To check that against a citable source, however, it would be necessary to examine records from that period, assuming such records exist. In addition, since it is possible that Pentecost Monday (Whitmonday) was also celebrated, a 28 May 1352 is not excluded. Thus, it may be safer to say "Pentecost" until someone finds a citation that does not amount to original research. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - though I feel sure someone with some authority (eg. the Church) ought to know the answer.Deb (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for your effort! I agree, better safe than OR, so I specified it was Pentecost and mentioned the possible dates given by the sources. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about coronation date 

message: The third paragraph of the section "Queen Consort" contained the sentence "The marriages of her sisters to the sons of the earls of Kent, Essex and Pembroke had left no sign of unhappiness on the parts of the parties involved, nor did that of her sister, Catherine Woodville, to the queen's 11-year-old ward Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, though the duke stood with the Duke of Gloucester in opposition to the Woodvilles after the death of Edward IV."
I made a grammatical correction -- in the third paragraph, I changed the present tense "have left no sign" and "nor do that of her sister"  to the past tense "had left" and "nor did".  However, the phrase "left no sign of unhappiness on the parts of the parties involved" is oddly worded, and it's not entirely clear what this means.  Was this a quote from a contemporary?  If so it should be cited as such.  If not, it seems inappropriately subjective -- less like an article on a historical figure and more like a recap from the TV series The White Queen.  This is a subjective impression of mine, however, so I don't want to edit it without a second person agreeing.
:It's a very subjective statement in the first place.  Thank you for pointing it out! Deb (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Queen Consort's siblings 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Elizabeth Woodville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054034/http://www.richard111.com/house_of_york.htm to http://www.richard111.com/house_of_york.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709203718/http://www.r3.org/basics/basic8.html to http://www.r3.org/basics/basic8.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Woodville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718051721/http://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/general-information/historical-fun/queens-college/foundresses-and-patronesses/elizabeth-woodville to http://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/general-information/historical-fun/queens-college/foundresses-and-patronesses/elizabeth-woodville
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "At the time of her birth, her family was mid-ranked in the English aristocracy."
Her father was not a peer. Even after he married the widow of a royal, I doubt that he was regarded as anything higher than gentry, albeit with royal connections. I propose changing the sentence to "..in the English class system." Harfarhs (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the aristocracy? 

message: It is stated that Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville married on 1 May 1464. However, as the marriage wasn't made public until the 14 September 1464 and Elizabeth wasn't honored as Queen at court until the 29 September 1464, shouldn't her tenure as Queen of England begin in September? Similarly, Anne Boleyn married Henry VIII on 14 November 1532 and 25 January 1533, but her tenure as Queen began only on 28 May 1533. --Edouard2 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable. From where do you get the 29 September date, though? Surtsicna (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it on Alison Weir's Lancaster And York: The Wars of the Roses, see [blacklisted link removed]. I think Michaelmas is on 29 September, isn't it? --Edouard2 (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Anne Boleyn is not a comparable case. When she "married" Henry VIII, his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was still recognised as legally valid. There could not be two Queens. It was only once Henry's marriage to Catherine was declared null and void and his previous marriage(s) to Anne were declared valid that Anne could be considered Queen. Here we just have a secret marriage of a King who was undoubtedly able to marry. One becomes a Queen when one marries a King, not when one is "honoured" as such. Proteus (Talk) 10:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you on that point, but I have another example: Henry VIII married Jane Seymour on 30 May 1536, when he had no other previous wives alive to contest her the title (Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn having already died), but he did not have her acknowledged as Queen of England until 4 June 1536. I'm not sure if Henry VIII's third marriage was secret (I think it was a rather discreet ceremony, not a secret one), but he did wait a bit before having her acknoweldged as Queen, albeit not as long as Edward IV did with his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. --Edouard2 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, "acknowledged" suggests recognition of a situation already in existence. I don't think it marks the point at which these people actually starting being Queen. Proteus (Talk) 12:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Being a king or a queen is not a biological fact. One is a queen when generally recognized as such. There have been women, both before and after Elizabeth Woodville, who were married to kings without being queens; Edith the Fair, Teresa Gil de Vidaure and Françoise d'Aubigné come to mind. If Elizabeth did not act as queen and nobody knew of the marriage, then surely it is misleading to give a precise date of the beginning of her queenship. I think the years should be enough in this case. Surtsicna (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Wives become Queens on the coronation; their marriage merely makes them wives. The fact that they are (usually) referred to as "Queen X" from the date of their marriage is purely a device of historians to save unnecessary complexity/ambiguity. For our purposes, though, we go by what the scholarship says, not what we think is best . ——Serial # 12:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Do the biographers of the couple specify the date when Elizabeth Woodville became queen? Surtsicna (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, she was crowned on 26 May 1465. (Per Hicks, ODNB)——Serial # 09:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Proteus on this. Changing the date without a published precedent would probably cause confusion. Deb (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of tenure as Queen of England 

message: An older version of this article began with an image that appeared to be an original 15th century portrait. That image was deleted entirely from the article and replaced with a 19th century piece which is not, in my opinion, good enough to replace the original. 15th century English portraitures were far behind their Italian contemporaries, but the one of Elizabeth Woodville is actually quite good (a copy still exists on Wikipedia in Elizabeth of York's article). This 19th century image makes Elizabeth a lot less queenly and a lot more like the Virgin Mary. Woodville was Catholic, but not noted for her piety. Also, the 19th century version depicts her hair down, an unlikely circumstance at the time. Finally, Elizabeth's face in the 19th century looks like it was made-up by a 12-year-old girl who was just learning the ropes. If I had the skill to revert it, I would go ahead and start an editing war. I hope someone with more skill than I agrees and at least brings the original portrait back into the article SOMEWHERE!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:C780:CD0:28FE:DB0B:717D:87D7 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't know why these Agnes Strickland images are being used to replace more contemporary images. I've changed it to the image you pointed out. Thanks for noting this! History Lunatic (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original portrait deleted and replaced 

message: Since there is some controversy about Philippa Gregory's work and because she portrayed Elizabeth Woodville and Jacquetta of Luxembourg as genuine witches in her novels, is it wise to include her work in the "References" and "Further Reading" sections of this article. I understand that most of her novels are fiction, however, from what I've heard she presents them as at best historically informed and at worst historical fact/strong possibilities. As she's not the only author of The Women of the Cousins' War, can anyone attest to the quality of the work from the other authors? NocturnalAudax (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippa Gregory 

message: The paragraph starts by saying this is one of three Middle English poems attributed to female authors, so I have added the citation for that as well as naming the other poems. This does make the first sentence rather long so I'd be happy if anyone wanted to rejig things. I think if we're going to mention a fact like that (which is quite interesting & relevant) it's worth naming the other poems. I also changed "more commonly believed" to "also argued" because Barratt's compilation was republished in 2010 and still argues for Elizabeth Woodville as the author so I think the matter is not as settled as "more commonly believed" would suggest. I think it's more neutral this way. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "My heart is set upon a lusty pin"