Sorbonne Université

Master 1, Bi-master Histoire-LLCE Anglais

Flora Croce

WOMEN AND POWER DURING THE WARS OF THE

ROSES
1444-1509

Under the supervision of Mrs Elisabeth CROUZET-PAVAN and Mrs Florence

BOURGNE

June 2019
Cover illustration: Presentation page of the Talbot-Shrewsbury Book, The Earl of Shrewsbury presenting the
book to Queen Margaret of Anjou and King Henry VI, 1444-1445, London, British Library, Royal MS 15
E VI f. 2v.
 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my research directors Mrs F. Bourgne and Mrs E. Crouzet-Pavan
for letting me study this subject and for their advice throughout the year, my fellow in
misery Loriane Hérault, my parents for listening to me and taking an interest in my
research, and Nicole Medina and her proofreading team, for agreeing to correct my
paper.
 Abbreviations

CWR GILES John Allen (ed.), The Chronicles of the White Rose of York, James
Bohn, London, 1845.

Chronicles of KINGSFORD Charles Lethbridge (ed.), Chronicles of London,

London Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1905.

Croyland RILEY Henry T. (ed.), Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland with
the Continuations by Peter of Blois and anonymous writers, Bohn’s
ANTIQUARIAN Library, London, 1854.

VERGIL, Three VERGIL Polydore. Three Books of Polydore Vergil’s English History, ed.
Books Henry ELLIS, Camden Society, London, 1844

MORE, Richard MORE Thomas, The Complete Works of St Thomas More, 2, The
III History of Richard III ed. Richard S. SYLVESTER, Yale University
Press, New Heaven, 1963.

HALL, Union HALL Edward, The Union of the two noble families of Lancaster and York,
Longman, Hurst, Rees and Orme, London, 1809.

MANCINI, MANCINI Dominic, The Usurpation of Richard the Third, ed. C.A.
Usurpation John ARMSTRONG, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1936.

FABYAN, New FABYAN Robert, The New Chronicles of England and France, ed. Henry
Chronicles ELLIS, F.C & J. Rivington, London, 1811.

CSP Milan Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts existing in the Archives and
Collections of Milan, ed. Alan B. HINDS, HMSO, London, 1912.

CPR Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, 1441-
1509, HMSO, London, 1897-1916.

Paston Letters DAVIS Norman (ed.), Paston Letters and Papers of the fifteenth century,
Part I & II, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004

BEADLE Richard, RICHMOND Colin (ed.), Paston Letters and Papers

of the fifteenth century, Part III, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2005.

SMITH, Coronation SMITH George (ed.), The Coronation of Elizabeth Wydeville, Queen
of Elizabeth Consort of Edward IV, on May 26th, 1465: a Contemporary Account now
Wydeville first set forth from a XVth Century Manuscript, Gloucester Reprints,
Cliftonville, 1975.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
Historiography .............................................................................................................. 2
Sources .......................................................................................................................... 8

Becoming Queen ........................................................................................ 13

Chapter I – Theoretical Writings: The Ideal Queen ................................................. 13
A – Virginity: Purity as the Ultimate Womanly Virtue .......................................... 14
B – Obedience, Modesty and Wisdom: A Woman’s Cardinal Virtues .................. 15
Chapter II – Investing in an Asset: Consolidating Power........................................... 18
A – With Wealth and Lands: Material Assets......................................................... 18
B – With Alliances: Political and Diplomatic Assets ............................................... 22
Chapter III – Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV: marrying “a lady of humble
origin” ......................................................................................................................... 26
A – Elizabeth Woodville’s Background .................................................................. 27
B – The Marriage ................................................................................................... 28
C – The Opposition to the Marriage ..................................................................... 30

Queen Consort: The Exercise Of Queenship ............................................ 35

I – The Queen’s Civic Power: Staging Queenship ..................................................... 35
A – The Coronation: Establishing the Queen’s Role ............................................. 35
B – The Royal Entry: The Queen’s Advent ........................................................... 37
C – The Queen’s Burial: Celebrating and Affirming Kingship ............................. 40
II – A Woman’s First Duty: Childbearing .................................................................. 42
A – Insuring the Succession .................................................................................... 42
B – The Fear of Women’s Sexuality ....................................................................... 43
C – Mothers, Children and Empowerment ........................................................... 46
III – The Queen’s Patronage: A Form of Empowerment .......................................... 48
A – Between Earthly and Heavenly Preoccupations: The Queen’s Religious
Patronage: ............................................................................................................... 48
B – The College of the Wars of the Roses: Queens’ College, Cambridge ............. 51
C – Print Patronage: The Political Use of The Printing Press ............................... 53

Women, Politics And Intercession .............................................................. 57

I – The Models of Intercession: Esther and the Virgin Mary .................................... 57
A – The Virgin as Mediatrix: From Heavenly to Earthly Intercession .................... 57
B – Queen Esther: The Submissive Intercessor...................................................... 60
 II – From the Icon to the Exercise of Power: From Theory to Practice..................... 61
A – The Queen as Mediator and Peace-seeker ...................................................... 62
B – Beyond the Intercessory Role: Getting Involved in the Kingdom’s Affairs ..... 64
C – Slandered Queens: Gender and Deligitimisation ............................................ 70
1. “Manly Women” .................................................................................................................70
2. Witchcraft and the Woodvilles ............................................................................................73

Queen Dowager, Mother of the King ........................................................ 77

I – The Queen Dowager............................................................................................. 77
A – Margaret of Anjou and the “Reverses of Fortune” .......................................... 77
B – Elizabeth Woodville’s Widowhood: The Fall and Rise of Edward IV’s line ... 79
C – The Title of Queen .......................................................................................... 81
II – Posing as Queen Dowager: Margaret Beaufort and Cecily Neville .................... 83
A – Cultural and Religious Patronage .................................................................... 84
1. Cecily Neville’s Rational Patronage ....................................................................................84
2. Lady Margaret Beaufort, “a veray patronesse” ...................................................................86
B – Self-fashioning: A Queen Not in Title but in Style .......................................... 89
1. Cecily Neville: From Duchess of York to Queen of Right ..................................................89
2. Margaret Beaufort, My Lady the King’s Mother ................................................................91

Conclusion .................................................................................................. 95

Appendix........................................................................................................ 99

Bibliography ................................................................................................. 108

Primary Sources ............................................................................................................ 108
Published Sources ...................................................................................................... 108
Manuscripts ............................................................................................................. 112
Secondary Sources .......................................................................................................... 112
 INTRODUCTION
Madam, the king is old enough himself
To give his censure. These are no women’s matters.
Henry VI Part 2, I, 3
This is how Humphrey, duke of Gloucester addresses Queen Margaret of Anjou
in Shakespeare’s Henry VI. As this quote illustrates, queens were not expected to get
involved in politics or in government, in other words, they were not expected to do a
king’s job, and had to stick to the roles that were expected of them as women and as
queens.
The Wars of the Roses and the implications they had on kingship have been
studied at length by scholars. But these wars also had implications on queens and
queenship since queens shared the king’s central role at court and in government.
Questions of legitimacy were at the heart of the Wars of the Roses, so queens were
necessarily involved as the person who would produce an heir and, for some, as they
participated actively to the politics. Many questions drove my research. How did a woman
become queen? What role was she expected have? Where did she drew her power from?
How did she exercise it? To focus my study of the queens to the Wars of the Roses allowed
me to bring out the regular aspects of queenship that had been practised for a long time,
but also to study the power that queens could have and how they exercised it in times of
political troubles. Moreover, the four queens I studied come from four different
backgrounds and accessed the throne under different circumstances.
Margaret of Anjou was a relative of the French king Charles VII, and the daughter
of René of Anjou, King of Naples and Jerusalem, Count of Provence and Duke of Anjou.
Once married to Henry VI, she was forced, due to his mental weakness, to take part in
the political game, venturing away from the traditional role that was expected of a queen.
Elizabeth Woodville, her successor, was an English gentlewoman coming from a
Lancastrian family. Her secret marriage to Edward IV and the quick advancement of her
family caused her to be the focus of many of Edward IV’s detractors, including his brother
Richard of Gloucester. Once he became king, Richard III’s wife, Anne Neville was
elevated as queen. Daughter of the powerful Earl of Warwick and used for bartering by
her father when he turned against Edward IV, she had already been married to Prince
Edward, Henry VI’s son, when she married Richard duke of Gloucester, in 1472. Her
successor, Elizabeth of York was an English princess, eldest daughter of Edward IV and

1
Elizabeth Woodville. According to the Tudor propaganda, her marriage to Henry VII
put an end to the Wars of the Roses by uniting the two warring houses of York and
Lancaster. Among the women I studied, I also included two royal noblewomen who were
never queen, but who acted like one and were queen all but in name: Cecily Neville,
duchess of York and Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. These
two women came from the same circles and knew each other but each represented one of
the warring factions of the Wars of the Roses, and both of them were the founders of
dynasties. Cecily Neville was the wife of Richard, duke of York, and mother of Edward
IV and Richard III. Thanks to her close relationship with her sons and her illustrious
pedigree, she ranked among the most powerful women in the kingdom during both of her
sons’ reigns and the Wars at large. Lady Margaret Beaufort was Henry Tudor’s mother
and her influence at her son’s court was unprecedented. Married four times and pregnant
at thirteen years old, during her son’s reign, she was known as a great patroness and
landowner, as well as for her great piety. One could argue that during the reign of Henry
VII, she was the most powerful woman of the kingdom and that she had more power and
influence than the queen herself.
My study will start in 1444 with the negotiations of Margaret of Anjou’s marriage
to Henry VI, and will end in 1509, which is the year of Margaret Beaufort’s death, a few
months after her son’s death.

Historiography

For a long time, the official history of the Wars of the Roses has been determined
by the chronicles written at the instigation of the Tudor monarchs. In these narratives,
Richard III was cast as the ultimate tyrant and Margaret of Anjou as an indefatigable
opponent to the duke of York and his line. Henry VII was presented as the providential
saviour, and his accession to the throne marked the beginning of a new modern and bright
era, breaking with the previous chaos and violence. This rearranging of the history of the
Wars of the Roses echoes the vision of the Middle Ages as a barbaric period, the “Dark
Ages”, developed in particular by the Humanists historians. It is this version that has been
popularised through Shakespeare’s plays. Sporadically, historians –Sir George Buck in
the beginning of the seventeenth century in his History of King Richard the Third, Horace
Walpole in 1768 with his Historic Doubts or Caroline Halsted in 1844 with her book Richard
III, as Duke of Gloucester and King of England – have questioned this official history, especially
in order to redeem Richard III’s image. In the nineteenth century, with the development

2
of new research methods and the opening of governmental, legal and private archives,
the study of the Wars of the Roses has known a renewal, based on sources that had never
been used before. The publication of the Paston Letters by James Gairdner and the
undertaking of the Rolls Series participated to the renewed interest for the Middle Ages
in general and the Wars of the Roses in particular.

In the twentieth century, historians self-called “revisionists” defended the idea that
the Wars of the Roses did not have a huge impact on everyday life and tried to tone down
the prevalent vision of a chaotic period. Charles Lethbridge Kingsford or Kenneth B.
McFarlane were two head figures of this historiographical movement. McFarlane was a
professor in Oxford and advocated for a re-assessment of widely accepted interpretations
and for a detailed and critical analysis of the sources. He influenced a whole generation
of historians such as Michael Hicks, Anne Crawford or Anthony J. Pollard. According to
McFarlane, Jack Robert Lander or Charles Ross, armed conflicts during the Wars of the
Roses were limited in scale and results. In 1981, John Gillingham claimed that England
during the Wars of the Roses was “a society organized for peace” and “the most peaceful
country in Europe1”. S.B. Chrimes went as far as suggesting that the Wars of the Roses
never existed2. After the Second World War, historians have turned toward the study of
private collections that hadn’t been studied before, since many had been left to local or
regional archives as a consequence of the war. This led to the production of many works
on the effects of the Wars in different counties and regions – Devon, Derbyshire, Kent,
Herefordshire, Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, and Yorkshire – as well as
on the history of the great families of the period – Tudors, Staffords, Beauforts, Percies,
Talbots, Stanleys, Courtenays, Howards, Mowbrays, and Greys.

Nowadays, historians have reached a consensus on several matters. The

expression “Wars of the Roses” applies to the three to four decades of unstable politics
and sporadic civil war in the second half of the fifteenth century. Since alliances were
complex and shifting, the actors of the Wars cannot be categorically identified as Yorkists
or Lancastrians. The starting and ending dates of the Wars of the Roses have been
extensively discussed by historians, but what is now established is that the year 1485
marked a shift between two periods, and that the years 1450-1530 form a coherent whole.
There are two great phases of the Wars: the first one from 1455 or 1459 – depending on

1 GILLINGHAM John, The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Conflict in fifteenth-century England, Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, London, 1981, quoted by POLLARD Anthony J., The Wars of the Roses, Palgrave Macmillan,
New York, 2013, p.15.
2 CHRIMES Stanley B., Lancastrians, Yorkists and Henry VII, Macmillan, London, 1964.
3
the historians – to 1471, concerns the conflict between Yorks and Lancasters; while the
second phase of conflicts, from 1483 to 1487 revolves around the rivalry between Yorks
and Tudors.

When queens were mentioned by medieval authors, some related actual facts but
most of them settled for rumours that casted the queens as women driven by their
passions, giving poor advices or poisoning their enemies as well as their relatives. Until
the 1970s and 1980s, historians did not consider that queens deserved to be the subject of
serious studies. When studies of queens were carried out, they were usually done by
women, for women, and were more romanced biographies than historical studies. The
emphasis was put on the queens’ sensibility, their passions and love stories, rather than on
political, economic or social facts as it was the case for the studies of kings. As Theresa
Earenfight argues: “queens were portrayed as sentimental, passionate and often ill-fated
Great Women married to Great Men, or doing unexpected things3.” These kinds of works
mostly appeared in the nineteenth century: the sisters Agnes and Elizabeth Strickland for
example produced many biographies, including a twelve-volume series of the Lives of the
Queens of England, published between 1840 and 1848. This tradition carried on to the
twentieth century with Eleanor Hibbert’s biographies of Lucrezia Borgia, Mary Stuart or
Catherine de’ Medici; and to nowadays with the works of Alison Weir and Philippa
Gregory, although these are based on serious historical research. The only queens that
were the subject of historical studies were those who distinguished themselves by assuming
more power than their predecessors or successors: this was the case of Eleanor of
Aquitaine and Margaret of Anjou, but here again, they were only studied as part of the
greater political game and not in their roles as queens.

In the beginning of the twentieth century, historians turned their interest toward
the study of the queen’s household, its functions, its structures and its link with the larger
history of administration. During the 1960s and more firmly during the 1970s, new
models of research were developed by gender historians in response to the second wave
of feminism. Along with this wave of feminism and its influence on historical studies,
medieval queens were considered through the lens of their roles and functions. Some
works have fundamentally changed the study of women and queens in particular. One of
the pioneers was Marion Facinger with her article “A Study of Medieval Queenship:
Capetian France, 987-1237”, published in 1968. The medievalists Jo Ann McNamara

3 EARENFIGHT Theresa, Queenship and Power: Queenship in medieval Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, New York,
2013, p.4.
4
and Suzanne Fonay Temple retraced the origins of women’s power in “The Power of
Women Through the Family in Medieval Europe, 500-1100”, published in 1973. During
the 1980s, many articles and essay collections were published about queens in the Middle
Ages. In 1986, Joan Wallach Scott’s essay “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical
Analysis” provided the basis and vocabulary for women and power. In her article
“Medieval Queenship”, published in 1989, Lois Huneycutt studied for the first time the
queens’ intercessory role in her essay “The Esther Topos”, published the same year.

But it is really in the 1990s that the interest for the study of queenship really
flourished: it gave led to the publication of conferences, essay collections and biographies
that have brought out the great themes that were linked to the study of medieval queens,
their power and their roles. Two ground-breaking essay collections have defined the
theoretical parameters in the study of women and power: Mary Erler and Maryanne
Kowaleski’s Women and Power in the Middle Ages published in 1988 and Louis Olga
Fradenburg’s Women and Sovereignty in 1991. Worth also mentioning are John Cami
Parsons’ Medieval Queenship in 1993 and Theresa M. Vann’s Queens, Regents and Potentates in
1993. Many other works have been published for the Society for Medieval Feminist
Scholarship or the Society for the Study of Early Modern Women. Scholars have often
studied queens under the prism of family and of sexuality. To understand a queen’s role,
it was necessary to understand the way they were seen and how they were expected to
behave in a world made by men, for men. Comprehensive studies of some particular
queens have extended such views to their wider practise of queenship and to the power
that queens wielded. I positioned myself in such a tradition: for my paper, I particularly
relied on John Cami Parsons’ works. He studied extensively the thirteenth-century queen
Eleonore of Castile as well as the queen’s intercessory role in the thirteenth century along
with matters touching the queens’ family and the sexuality, and how these elements
empowered them. Joanna Chamberlayne-Laynesmith’s extensive works about late
medieval queens have also been a great basis for my paper, especially her book The Last
Medieval Queens, published in 2004, in which she studied the roles of the four queens of the
Wars of the Roses: Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth Woodville, Anne Neville and Elizabeth
of York. Her work was a detailed and extensive study of those late medieval queens, that
served as basis for a larger study of Late Medieval English queenship. Laynesmith
broached every subject touching to their role: from the grand ceremonies to their day-to-
day activities.

5
 The six noblewomen I chose to study have each at least one biographer. Margaret
of Anjou has been the subject of several biographies through the years: by Jacob Abbot in
1871 and by J.J. Bagley in 1948. But the latest one and the one I used is Helen Maurer’s
and was published in 2004: Maurer used Margaret as a basis to study in depth questions
of queenship and power4. Elizabeth Woodville has been the subject of many biographies
in the 2000s: by David Baldwin in 20025, by Arlene Okerlund in 20056, and by David
MacGibbon in 20137. Anne Neville’s biographies have only started to be published quite
recently: one in 2011 by Michael Hicks8, and another one in 2013 by Amy Licence9. The
last queen that I studied, Elizabeth of York has only been the subject of one extensive
biography, by Arlene Okerlund in 200910. Apart from those four queens, I also studied
the roles of Cecily Neville, duchess of York and Lady Margaret Beaufort. Cecily Neville’s
biographies, much like Anne Neville’s or Elizabeth of York’s are quite recent: the first one
was published in 2014 by Amy Licence11, then Joanna Laynesmith published on in 201712
and the most recent one is by John Ashdown-Hill and was published in 201813.
Eventually, Margaret Beaufort’s reference biographers are Michael K. Jones and
Malcolm G. Underwood who published a biography in 199314; a more recent one has
also been published by Elizabeth Norton in 201015.

My subject is articulated around the paradox that queens represented in a male-

dominated world. A queen played a crucial part in assuring the continuity of the dynasty,
but at the same time, her intimate relationship with the king gave her a great influence
over him – an influence that was seen as an anomaly in the political structure. Two
paradoxical visions of women coexisted in medieval society: that of the women as weak,
gentle, and appeasing and the women as descendant of Eve, cause of the original sin,
seductress and doing the devil’s bidding16. My first intention was to study the four queens
of the Wars of the Roses extensively. My goal was to encompass the expectations that they

4 MAURER Helen, Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England, Boydell Press,
Woodbridge, 2005.
5 BALDWIN David, Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes of the Tower, Sutton, Stroud, 2002.
6 OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth Wydeville: England’s Slandered Queen, Tempus Publishing, Stroud, 2006.
7 MACGIBBON David, Elizabeth Woodville: A Life, Stroud, Amberley, 2014.
8 HICKS Michael, Anne Neville, Queen to Richard III, Tempus, Stroud, 2006.
9 LICENCE Amy, Anne Neville: Richard III’s Tragic Queen, Amberley, Stroud, 2013.
10 OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth of York, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2009.
11 LICENCE Amy, Cecily Neville: Mother of Kings, Amberley Publishing, Amberley, 2015.
12 LAYNESMITH Joanna L., Cecily Duchess of York, Bloomsbury, London, 2017.
13 ASHDOWN-HILL John, Cecily Neville: Mother of Richard III, Pen & Sword History, Barnsley, 2018.
14 JONES Michael K., UNDERWOOD Malcolm G., The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of
Richmond and Derby, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
15 NORTON Elizabeth, Margaret Beaufort: Mother of the Tudor Dynasty, Amberley, Stroud, 2011.
16 LAYNESMITH Joanna L., The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 2004, p.10.
6
were supposed to live up to, their day-to-day practise of queenship, as well as their
portrayal by chroniclers and their future historiographical fate, but it proved to be too
great of a task to be done in only one year; moreover, it had already been done by Joanna
Laynesmith. This is why I focused on the power of those queens: where it came from, how
they were supposed to exercise it and how they did exercise it. This study is even more
interesting when applied to the queens of the Wars of the Roses because of the diversity
of their background and because the political context seemed to offer them a greater scope
of action, as Margaret of Anjou’s later reputation suggested.

To answer such questions, I adopted a chronological approach that allowed me to

study the question of the queens’ power through every step of their lives. In the first part
I analysed the criteria that were at stake when choosing a queen. There were requirements
that concerned the morality and the behaviour of the future queen: these elements that
were key to a good behaviour were common to all women in general. Then there were
requirements specifically for queens or noblewomen: what the future wife could bring to
her husband in terms of wealth, alliances and legitimisation. Eventually, I focused on one
marriage in particular: that of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. This alliance was
quite unexpected and ran counter to most of the previous criteria. Once she married a
king, the queen was expected to play her part and fulfil some major duties that validated,
in a way, her queenship. Among such duties were the coronation and the most important
one: childbearing. Ceremonies as well as producing an heir was a source of power for the
queens. They also exercised their power in an area where women’s influence was accepted
and encouraged: in cultural patronage. One element that stood out deserved particular
attention since it was the – almost – official role of the queen in matters of politics and
government: her intercessory role. But when this role was not strictly fulfilled, or when
queens used their power to get involved in “no women’s matters”, they became the target
of many slanders that related to their sexuality and their gender. Eventually, once the king
died, if they survived him, they had the status of queen dowager. But among the four
queens I chose to study, only two of them survived their husbands, and they did not
exactly live their widowhood as queen dowager were expected to. The two women who
did exercise their power as queen dowagers were Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort,
even though they never were queen during their husbands’ lifetime. This last part will also
be the occasion for me to study the implications that came with bearing the title of
“queen”, and why the two kings’ mothers could not be called “Queen Dowager”.

7
Sources
The first kind of sources I used are the narrative sources in every sense: from
chronicles to ceremony accounts. These sources offer an interesting angle of study, and
they allow us to observe and analyse the writers’ point of view. It is interesting to study if
one author’s specific point of view is different from the general consensus. Between 1858
and 1911 a huge collection of primary sources concerning British and Irish history were
published: the Rolls Series, or The Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during
the Middle Ages (Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores). Most of the primary sources I have
used in this paper were published in this collection. The chronicles of the Wars of the
Roses can be separated in two groups: those written after the accession of Edward IV in
1461, and those written during the Early Tudor period, from the accession of Henry VII
in 1485. Chronicles written before the accession of Edward IV are generally from a
London background and thereby adopt a Yorkist bias. That is the case for example of the
Chronicle of London, or Gregory’s Chronicle that has been attributed to William Gregory, mayor
of London from 1450 to 1451 and who died in 1467. The chronicle spans from 1189 to
1470, so if Gregory was its author he was not the only one. The manuscript is preserved
in the British Library (MS Edgerton 1995) and was first published in 1876 by James
Gairdner under the name Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the fifteenth century. I
also used Charles Lethbridge Kingsford’s Chronicles of London which gathers several
London chronicles from the thirteenth century to 1509. For the period of the Wars of the
Roses, the text come from a sixteenth-century manuscript from the Cotton collection of
the British Library (Vitellius A XVI). The chronicles written under the Tudors tend to be
rather hostile to Richard III, and to favour the Lancastrians. This is the case of the two
Tudor chronicle I used in my paper: Polydore Vergil’s Anglica Historia and Edward Hall’s
Union of the two noble families of Lancaster and York, both published by Sir Henry Ellis. The
content of both chronicles is much similar but Hall’s chronicle is more blatantly hostile to
the Yorkists, while Vergil’s is more moderate. Vergil’s chronicle was written at the
instigation of Henry VII. The first version was finished around 1512-1513, but it was not
published until 1534. Hall’s chronicle was not made by special request of the king, but the
author’s allegiance is still clearly Tudor. It was printed for the first time in 1548 by
Richard Grafton, and two years later a revised edition was published. The only modern
edition that we have is that of Henry Ellis, published in 1809, and reprinted in 1965: this
is the edition I used for my paper. These chronicles shaped the image that we have of the
queens of this period and was transmitted to us through Shakespeare’s plays which were

8
based on both of those chronicles along with Holinshed’s. Margaret appeared as “the she-
wolf of France”, Elizabeth Woodville as a grasping woman and a femme fatale, and Anne
Neville was cast as the clueless victim of Richard’s deception. One of the rare Lancastrian
chronicles that was not written under the Tudors is John Hardyng’s chronicle. Hardyng
served the Percies and Umfraville families during the first part of the fifteenth century.
The political orientation of the different versions of his chronicle depended upon its
patron. The first version was dedicated to Henry VI and his family, and covered
England’s history until 1437. The second version was destined to Richard, duke of York
and continued for his son, Edward IV: it continued the first version until Hardyng’s death
in 1465. The first version is kept in the British Library and corresponds to Lansdowne
manuscript 204; one of the manuscripts of the second version is in the Bodleian Library
(MS Arch. Selden B. 10.). This chronicle was first printed by Richard Grafton in 1543, in
two editions. In the nineteenth century, Sir Henry Ellis published the longest edition of
Grafton. In 2015, MS Lansdowne 204 was republished by Pr. Sarah Peverley and James
Simpson, and the publication of the second version is being prepared. I was only able to
use Ellis’ edition because the 2015 one is only available in British or German libraries.
One of the chronicles considered as the most authoritative source for the period is the
Croyland Chronicle or Crowland Chronicle. The First Continuator mainly focused on the abbey
of Crowland’s history, and concludes in January 1470. The Second Continuation,
covering the period from 1459 to 1486, is the most interesting part of the chronicle. The
author is quite objective and tries to be as accurate as possible. It was written in 1486, so
after Henry Tudor’s accession to the throne, and by someone who had access to
information form the court, probably a member of Edward IV’s or Richard III’s council.
There is also a third continuation, overlapping the second one and covering the years
1485 and 1486. The chronicle ends with the marriage between Henry Tudor and
Elizabeth of York and the Yorkist rebellion that followed. This chronicle was translated
from Latin and published by Henry T. Riley in 1854. The oldest manuscript that has
survived dates from the sixteenth century and is preserved in the British Library (Arundel
MS 178). Warkworth’s Chronicle is the other chronicle of the period that is trying to avoid a
partisan bias. It covers the years 1461-1474, and has been attributed to John Warkworth,
Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge, but it is possible that he was only its owner. In this
paper, I used the most recent edition of this chronicle: that of 1999, by Lister Matheson.
Foreign chronicles are also interesting to include because they may offer a different
point of view on queenship according to the customs of its author’s native place. I used
the works of three Burgundian chroniclers: George Chastellain, Jean Molinet and Jean

9
de Wavrin. Chastelain was the duke of Burgundy’s official chronicler and in his Chronique
des ducs de Bourgogne, he relates the English events from what he can gather at the court of
Philip the Good and then of Charles the Bold. Jean Molinet, Chastellain’s secretary
replaced his master after his death in 1475 as official historiographer. He wrote his own
chronicle, which is a continuation of Chastellain’s chronicle. Jean de Wavrin’s Recueil des
Croniques et Anchiennes Istories de la Grant Bretaigne, à présent nommé Engleterre relates England’s
history from its origins to Edward IV’s return to the throne in 1471. Many of his
information is first-hand since he participated to the Hundred Years War as a knight in
the French and Burgundian armies. As for the Wars of the Roses, historians consider that
he must have been close to the ruling Yorkist family, maybe to Anthony Woodville,
Queen Elizabeth Woodville’s brother. In terms of foreign sources, I also used Philippe de
Commynes’ Mémoires for a French point of view on the second part of Edward IV’s reign.
In his account he strives for impartiality, but it is clear that his allegiances lie with Louis
XI: he doesn’t hesitate to lecture the English king when his actions are not pondered
enough. Caspar Weinreich, a chronicler from Danzig also wrote a chronicle relating the
English events from 1461 to 1495. For an Italian point of view, I used two sources in
particular: Dominic Mancini’s De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium and the
Commentaries of Pius II. Dominic Mancini was an Italian visitor writing for his master,
Angelo Cato, the archbishop of Vienne, counsellor, doctor and astrologer of the French
king Louis XI. His De Occupatione has been considered as a rather unbiased account of
Richard III’s usurpation. But scholars have now pointed out that Mancini related many
rumours and gossips that were part of Richard III’s propaganda, without adopting a
critical approach. His account is still of great value because he describes only events that
he witnessed himself during his stay in England between 1482-1483. The only surviving
manuscript was preserved in Lille’s public library and was rediscovered and published by
C. A. J. Armstrong in 1936. Nowadays the manuscript is kept in the Vatican Archives. In
his Commentaries, Pope Pius II also produced his own detailed chronicle. He offers an
interesting account of English history, and his mention of Margaret of Anjou in particular
is striking and unexpected.
Special ceremonies like coronations, royal entries or marriages were the occasion
to produce short narrative accounts to record the glory of the sovereign and his family. In
1901, L. G. Wickham Legg produced a compilation of several coronation accounts in his
English Coronation Records, including Richard III’s and Anne Neville’s joint coronation,
something that had not happened in England since the coronation of Edward II and
Isabella of France in 1308. Elizabeth Woodville’s coronation on 26 May 1465 was

10
recorded an eyewitness, William Ballard, King of Arms. The manuscript is preserved in
the Bodleian Library (Smith Newsb. d. 19), and it was published in 1935 by George Smith.
The Coventry Leet Book, which is the Coventry Mayor’s Register gives a detailed of the
pageants organised for Margaret of Anjou’s entry into the city in 1456. It was edited by
Mary Dormer Harris for the Early English Text Society in 1907.
During the nineteenth century, many non-narrative sources of Medieval England
have also been published. This is the case of the Patent Rolls that have been published –
for those between 1232 and 1509 – in calendar form. 53 volumes were published between
1891 and 1916 under the title Calendars of the Patent Rolls. These patent rolls correspond to
the series C 66 in the National Archives. The series SC 1 “Ancient Correspondence of
the Chancery and Exchequer” also provide elements regarding the queen’s household.
The series SC 8 “Ancient Petitions” is interesting to study the queen’s intercessory role.
The series E (Exchequer) of the Public Record Office contains everything related to
finances. I did not use those two series in my paper because I did not have to occasion to
visit the National Archives. In 1861, the historian James Gairdner has also published
many documents of different kind – narrative as well as administrative – regarding the
reigns of Richard III and Henry VII. These were part of the Rolls Series, they were
published under the title Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VI,
and have been republished in 1965.
We also owe James Gairdner the first comprehensive edition of the Paston Letters.
These letters are extremely important sources for the Wars of the Roses. They were
written by many members of the Paston family between 1422 and 1509. This family came
from Norfolk and the letters give good insights about the repercussions of the Wars of the
Roses in regions further away from London. The first part of the letters was published
between 1787 and 1823 by the Fenn family. Then Gairdner published these same letters
along with some recently-discovered ones. The complete version was published in 1904:
it includes more than a thousand letters as well as a new introduction. Richard Beadle
and Colin Richmond recently made a new edition for the Oxford University Press. In
terms of epistolary sources, few letters of the queens of England have survived but those
that did have been published for the first time by Mary Everett Green under the title Letters
of Royal and Illustrious Ladies in 1846. Anne Crawford has republished some of them in 1997
under the title Letters of the Queens of England 1100-1547.
One of the most difficult elements when studying medieval queens is their relative
absence from the sources; in addition of which, all of the narrative sources I used come
from a male author. The depiction of queens that come from such sources are thus biased.

11
Another bias is also to be taken in account: that of the political manipulation of the
representation of queens. As Anne Duggan argues in the introduction of Queens and
Queenship in medieval Europe: “Is it possible to extract a true history of royal and imperial
women from the stereotypes – negative and positive – which pictorial image, narrative
history and literary topoi have constructed?17”

17 DUGGAN Anne J. (ed), Queens and Queenship in medieval Europe: Proceedings of a Conference held at King's College
London, April 1995, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 1997.
12
 FIRST PART

BECOMING QUEEN

Chapter I – Theoretical Writings: The Ideal Queen

Women and especially noblewomen had to conform to certain social requirements
and to fulfil some expectations in order to be considered as worthy and as noble in
character than in blood. This was especially true for young noblewomen or princesses
who were considered as prospective bride for a king. Such requirements were
encapsulated in some theoretical works. Here, I will focus on three works in particular:
Christine de Pizan’s Livre des Trois Vertus, Caxton’s Game and Playe of the Chess published in
1474, which is in fact an English translation of Jacques de Cessole’s Jeu des échecs moralisé,
a treatise of moral behaviour written at the end of the thirteenth century, and The Book of
the Knight of the Tower, a tutorial for young noblewomen, intended for the author’s
daughters. In the prologue of the 1474 edition of The Game and Playe of the Chesse, Caxton
dedicates his work to his professed patron, George, duke of Clarence, brother of king
Edward IV. Therefore this work has probably circulated in the royal court, and it does
not seem too far-fetched to assume that the queens I am studying may have read it, or at
least knew about its content. The first English edition of The Book of the Knight of La Tour-
Landry is also owed to William Caxton. In his prologue, he explains that he finished
translating it from French in June 1483 and printed it the following January. There also
existed a previous English translation of this same book dating from the reign of Henry
VI, but it was never printed, and its author is unknown. It is contained in a manuscript in
the Harleian collection of the British Museum (MS. Harl. No. 1764), it appears to have
been part of a larger volume which may have contained other manuscripts1. As for the
Game and Playe of the Chesse, we have no precise indication that his book was read by any of
the women I am studying but considering the dates of those two English versions and the
popularity of Sir Geoffrey de la Tour-Landry’s manual, it is possible that they either read
it or were familiar with it. Christine de Pizan’s Livre des Trois Vertus or Trésor de la Cité des
Dames constitutes a one-of-a-kind mirror for women and included advices to high-born
ladies. Even if it wasn’t translated into English by the time of the Wars of the Roses,
Christine de Pizan’s previous work Le Livre de la cité des dames was particularly popular

1 WRIGHT Thomas (ed.), The Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry, Early English Texts Society, Trübner &
Co., London, 1868, pp. xiii-xiv.
13
among women of the English royal court, so it is possible the Trésor was too2. What is
certain is that Isabeau of Bavaria, wife of the French king Charles VI, owned a richly
illustrated copy of Christine de Pizan’s complete works. This manuscript is now in the
British Library (BL MS Harley 4431) and it came into the possession of the Woodvilles3.
The first page of the book contains the signatures of the different owners. Next to Louis
de Gruuthuse’s signature and motto “plus est en vous”, there is Anthony Woodville’s
motto “Nulle la vault” under which appears the signature “A Rivieres”: Anthony
Woodville, brother of queen Elizabeth Woodville, inherited the title of Earl Rivers at his
father’s death in 1469.

A – Virginity: Purity as the Ultimate Womanly Virtue

One of the recurring and most important themes in those works is the question of
virginity. Indeed, Caxton’s Book of the Chesse stresses the importance of chastity for a queen,
it was a virtue that could be decisive in a prince or a king’s choice of a wife: “The Quene
ought to kepe her doughters in alle chastyte / For we rede of many maydens that for theyr
virginite haue ben made quenes”4. The queen also had to be chaste in order to provide a
good example for her subjects. As queen, the womanly model she had to follow was that
of the Virgin Mary; and she was herself a model of womanly behaviour for her subjects:
“also a quene ought to be chaste / for as she is aboue all other in astate & reuerce so shold
she be ensample to all other in her liuyng honestly5.” Joanna Chamberlayne points out
that by the power of her consecration as queen, she was singled out and placed above
other women in rank, but also in virtue. Chastity and virginity set apart queens from other
women because in possessing this virginal status they were more closely associated to the
Virgin Mary and it emphasised their status as bride of a Christ-like king. According to
Joanna Chamberlayne, virginity also enabled women to approach a sort of spiritual
masculinity, and its implication for their salvation was greater than for men. Because of
Eve’s original sin, women were further away from the notion of an ideal Christian than
men, and chastity was a way for them to somewhat make up for it. For women, virginity
was also the one and only quality by which their reputation stood or fell6. It is interesting

2 LAYNESMITH Joanna L., The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 2004, pp.3-4.
3 MEALE Carol M., “Patron, Buyers and Owners: Book Production and Social Status”, in Book Production
and Publishing in Britain, 1375-1475, ed. Jeremy GRIFFITHS, Derek PEARSALL, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1989, p.208.
4 CESSOLES Jacques de, Caxton’s Game and Playe of the Chesse, trans. William Caxton, ed. William E.A.
AXON, Elliot Stock, London, 1883, p.34.
5 Ibid., p.29.
6 CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins: Queenmaking during the Wars of the Roses”, in
Young Medieval Women, ed. Katherine J. LEWIS, Noel James MENUGE and Kim M. PHILLIPS, Alan
14
to remark that in his chapter, “How our Lord praises good wives7”, Sir Geoffrey de la
Tour-Landry reminds his daughters of the comparison that Jesus made between a maiden
and a pearl, margarita in Latin: “Je vous dy, dist nostre seigneur, que femme qui est bonne
et nette doit estre comparée à la precieuse marguerite 8.” The clear and stainless pearl is
compared to the purity of the virgin. It is very much possible that such women as Margaret
of Anjou or Margaret Beaufort knew the meaning and symbolic significance of their name
and its association with virginity and purity. Despite the moral benefits of chastity and
virginity, there is a more practical reason for the emphasis that is put on those virtues.
Indeed, marriages and especially royal ones, were first and foremost linked to the need to
have heirs and to ensure the hereditary succession to the throne9. Besides, as the queen’s
virtues reflected on her husband, if she committed adultery, her sin could also reflect on
her husband or on his kingdom. Sir Geoffrey illustrates this idea with the story of Joseph
and Potiphar’s wife. In the Genesis, Potiphar is an officer of the pharaoh, and his wife
makes advances at Joseph, who refuses himself to her, staying faithful to his master, her
husband. Potiphar’s wife then accuses Joseph of trying to abuse her and he is imprisoned.
He is eventually freed thanks to a godly intervention. In Sir Geoffrey’s story, the woman
in question is not the wife of a royal officer, but the queen herself. Thus, her actions have
repercussions on the kingdom and its government, because Joseph, a faithful and trusty
advisor to the king is unjustly imprisoned. Eventually, the lustful queen dies “badly and
suddenly of a cruel death10.”

B – Obedience, Modesty and Wisdom: A Woman’s Cardinal

Virtues

In his manual, Sir Geoffrey teaches his daughters to be good wives, and stresses
the importance of being obedient to their husbands. A wife had to support her husband
and be respectful: no matter his age, his character or his attitude towards her, she had to
do everything she could to make him look good. Rebecca Barnhouse links this
unconditional submission of a wife to her husband to the fact that women are the cause
of all the evil in the world, because of Eve’s original sin11. This emphasis on a wife’s

Sutton, Stroud, 1999, pp.52, 56.

7 “Comment Nostre Seigneur loue les bonnes femmes”, MONTAIGLON Anatole de (ed.), Le Livre du
Chevalier de la Tour-Landry pour l’enseignement de ses filles, Librairie Plon, Paris, 1854, p.233.
8 Ibid.
9 CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins”, op. cit., p.48.
10 “mauvaisement et souddainement de male mort”, MONTAIGLON Anatole de (ed.), Le Livre du Chevalier
de la Tour-Landry pour l’enseignement de ses filles, Librairie Plon, Paris, 1854, p.121.
11 BARNHOUSE Rebecca (ed.), The Book of the Knight of the Tower. Manners for Young Medieval Women,
Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2006, p.85.
15
subordination and obedience to her husband is also to be found in Christine de Pizan’s
Livre des Trois Vertus:

La noble princepce qui en toutes choses vouldra suivre la regle d’onneur se

maintendra vers son seigneur, soit vieil ou joenne, en toutes les manieres que bonne
foy et vraye amour en tel cas commande, c’est assavoir se rendre humble vers lui
en fait, en reverence et en parole, l’obeira sans murmuracion et gardera sa paix a
son pouoir soingneusement12.
Both of Sir Geoffrey and Christine de Pizan use the biblical example of Queen Esther to
illustrate their claim. Esther was king Ahasuerus’ second wife; his first wife, Vashti was
repudiated because she would not comply to her husband’s wishes. In comparison, Esther
was chosen for her beauty and her modesty – from which stemmmed her obedience.
Christine de Pizan’s Esther is allowed a particular hold over her husband: indeed, her
obedient nature made her husband love her and honour her so much that everything she
wanted, he gave her. This is a first glimpse of the influence a wife could have over her
husband. For Christine de Pizan, respecting her husband will bring honour to a wife:
“toute dame qui aime honneur, et semblablement toute femme estant en ordre de
mariage, il apertient que elle aime son mary et vive en paix avec lui13.”
Those virtues a woman had to cultivate had a moral importance, but some were
also needed in a more practical context. A wise queen was able to act prudently and
according to the circumstances. In the Game and Playe of the Chesse, the author recommends
a queen to be
well manerd and not curyous in nourisshynge of her children / her wyfedom ought
not only tappere in feet and werkes (to appear in feats and works) but also in spekynge
that is to wete that she be secrete and telle not suche thynges as ought to be holden
secrete14.
Following this advice is the story of Papirus as it is told, according to Sir Geoffrey, by
Macrobius in his Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis. This story is initially found in Aulus
Gellius’ Attic Nights, and integrated in Sir Geoffrey’s manual, it serves as a counter-example
and shows the destructive potential of womanly curiosity. The virtue of discretion is also
found in the Livre des Trois Vertus. Indeed, the two chief virtues Christine de Pizan puts
forward are chastity – as seen earlier – and sobriety. Everything a woman did had to be
done with restraint and earnestness, she must not engage in superfluous activities and
appear vain, be it in her manner of eating, dressing, talking, in short, in her whole
behaviour.

12 PISAN Christine de, Le Livre des Trois Vertus, ed. Charity C. WILLARD, Honoré Champion, Paris, 1989,
p.53.
13 Ibid., p.52.
14 CESSOLES Jacques de, Caxton’s Game and Playe, op. cit., p.27.
16
 Ceste dicte Sobrece se demonstrera en tous les sens de la dame aussi bien que es
fais et habiz par dehors […]. Avec ceste Sobrece corrigera tellement et ordonnera
la bouche et le parler de la dame que elle la gardera principalement de trop parler
[…]; luy fera haïr de tout son cuer le vice de mençonge et amer verité […]15.
Talking too much was considered as a vice, and a queen should rather talk less and
especially talk when it was appropriate for her to do so. In Sir Geoffrey’s version of
Esther’s story, she is treated poorly by her husband, but despite his attitude, when they
are before other people, she does not say anything that could anger him. She makes her
pleas to her husband when the time is right – when they are alone – and she courteously
shows him his faults, which brings the king to love her even more16. In Christine de Pizan’s
Trésor, going hand in hand with Sobriety is Prudence which prevents the queen from
acting rashly and without having previously consulted an advisor: “A toutes fins ne doit
riens entreprendre sans bon avis, conseil et juste cause.17.” Humility was also one key
virtue a woman had to possess, and she was to be sweet and patient:

Son maintien, son port et son parler sera doulz et benigne, la chiere plaisant a yeulx
baissiéz, rendant salut a toute creature qui le lui baillera, en parole tant humaine et
tant doulce que agreable soit a Dieu et au monde18.
If she displayed such virtues, she would, in turn, be held in high esteem both by her
husband and by her subjects. A queen needed to be worthy of her role and her king: her
character, wisdom, beauty or chastity were important because they could reflect well upon
the king, her husband. As Rosemary Ruether writes it: “The ideal queen thus
consummated her husband’s kingship by beauty, chastity and noble character that were
an inspiration to good deeds, by mercy and emotion which complemented his judgment
and logic, by an inclination to peace that tempered his courage, and by the flesh of the
most human that complemented his spirit approaching the divine19.” Those virtues a
queen had to possess cannot only be seen as means for men to assert their authority and
superiority onto women, since they could also empower those same women. If we go back
to the ideal of chastity, Joanna Laynesmith proposes an interesting analysis. She reminds
that virginity’s principal benefit, according to Methodius of Olympus, a second-century
Platonist, was that it cancelled woman’s womanliness. So, the ideal of a virgin queen could

15 PISAN, Le Livre des Trois Vertus, p.44.

16 “le roy son seigneur estoit mal et divers, et lui disoit aucunes foiz moult d’oultraigeuses paroles et
vilainnies; mais pour riens que il lui deist ell ne lui respondoit aucune parole dont il se deust corroucer
devant les gens; mais après, quand elle le trouvoit seul et veoit son lieu, elle se desblamoit et lui
monstroit bel et courtoisement sa fault, et pour ce le roy l’amoit à merveilles et disoit en son secret
qu’il ne se pvoit courroucier à sa femme, tant le prenoit par bel et par doulces paroles.”,
MONTAIGLON Anatole de (ed.), Le Livre du Chevalier, op.cit., pp.189-190.
17 PISAN, Le Livre des Trois Vertus, p.44.
18 PISAN, Le Livre des Trois Vertus, p.29.
19 RUETHER Rosemary R., Sexism and God-talk: Toward a Feminist Theology, quoted by CHAMBERLAYNE
Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins”, op. cit., p.54.
17
be seen as making acceptable a woman in a position of power by desexualising her. But
in the fifteenth century, there were also empowering qualities attached to virginity:
according to the early fathers, virginity made humans equal with angels and precipitated
the coming of God’s kingdom. Later on, the legends of female martyrs such as Saint
Margaret of Saint Katherine often associated their virginity with their ability to resist
temptation and the devil20. Thus, the virginal ideal was a double-sided virtue, and could
be used to assert women’s submission to men and especially to their husbands, but also to
empower them, as it is seen with the widespread associations made between queens and
the Virgin Mary, who is Queen of Heaven and who, as such, rules upon men and women.

Chapter II – Investing in an Asset: Consolidating Power

A – With Wealth and Lands: Material Assets

Beyond morality and virtue, the choice of a queen had to be strategic in order to
bring advantages to the king: some practical elements had to be taken into account. Chief
of those were the potential wealth and lands the future queen could bring to her husband.
The first marriage in the time period I chose is that of Margaret of Anjou to Henry VI.
This marriage was more based on the need for peace that was sealed by a union than on
the potential wealth the bride could bring. Indeed, one chronicler complained that
Margaret arrived without “any peny profite, or foote of possession21.” Furthermore,
among the terms and conditions of the treaty with France and of the marriage was the
transfer of Maine and Anjou, that were then English possessions, to Margaret’s father,
René of Anjou:

In this yere the mariage beforsaid was concluded, for conclusion wherof the kyng
shuld delyuer to hir fadir the duchy of Angoo and the Erldom of Mayn, whiche was
the key of Normandy22.
Much of the discontent provoked by this marriage was due to this particular provision,
and later on, Margaret would bear most of the blame for the loss of these two territories.
It seems that she indeed intervened in the matter and may have pressed Henry VI to
accelerate the transfer. In a letter to Charles VII, from 17 December 1445, she agreed to
do her best to help maintain the peace between France and England by the delivery of
Maine and Anjou. In another letter from Henry VI to Charles, dating from 22 December

20 CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins”, op. cit., p.55.

21 GRAFTON Richard, A Chronicle at Large and Meere History of the Affayres of England and Kinges of the Same,
quoted by LEE Patricia-Ann, “Margaret of Anjou and the Dark Side of Queenship”, Renaissance
Quarterly, 39, n°2, 1986, p.185.
22 KINGSFORD Charles Lethbridge (ed.), Chronicles of London, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1905, p.155.
18
1445, Henry agreed to hand over the territories because of his desire for peace and

favouring also our most dear and well-beloved companion the queen, who has
requested us to do this many times, and out of regard to our said father and uncle,
for whom it is most reasonable that we should do more than for others who are not
so nearly connected with us23.

Besides symbolising the loss of Maine and Anjou, Margaret of Anjou’s coming to England
resulted in more expenditures from the impoverished English crown. Her dower was set
at 10,000 marks, which was more than the crown could afford. And she had to be
endowed of lands: she received the duchy honours of Tutbury, Leicester and Kenilworth,
and lands in Essex, Herefordshire, Middlesex, Surrey and London, along with the ‘ancient
south parts’ of the duchy, including lands in Hampshire, Wiltshire, Somerset, Dorset,
Devon, Cornwall, Oxfordshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire. These lands were
estimated to be worth £2,000 and her grand also included knights’ fees, advowsons, and
all the advantages the king enjoyed there as well as a cash annuity from the duchy of
£1,00024. Added to these were the costs of Margaret’s coming to England that were
particularly heavy for the English crown. While a marriage was supposed to profit the
king and the kingdom, and to usher in peaceful times, this one did not seem to fulfil such
expectations:

Of this mariuge, ar of diuers wryters left diuers remembraunces, saying, yt this

mariage was vnprofitable for ye realme dyuers wayes. For first, was gyuen vp for
her out of ye kynges possession, ye duchy of Angeou & ye erledome of Mayne; &
for ye costes of her conueying into this lande, was axyd in playne parlyament, a
fyftene & an halfe by the marquys of Suffolke […] And ouer that, it such appered
yt God was nat pleasyd with that mariage. For after this day the fortune of ye
world began to fall from the kynge, so yt he loste his frendes in Englande, & his
reuenewes in Fraunce25.

The marriages of Elizabeth Woodville to Edward IV and Elizabeth of York to

Henry VII were not primarily prompted by the need for those two kings to secure lands
or wealth. The one marriage that was probably chiefly made for such profit was that of
Anne Neville to Richard, then duke of Gloucester. Anne was the second daughter of the
powerful Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, also known as the Kingmaker. In 1469, her
older sister, Isabelle, had married George, duke of Clarence and Edward IV’s brother.

23 DUNN Diana, “Margaret of Anjou, Queen Consort of Henry VI: A Reassessment of her Role, 1445-
1453” in Crown, Government and People in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Rowena E. ARCHER, Alan Sutton,
Stroud, 1995, p.141.
24 CRAWFORD Anne, “The King’s Burden? – the Consequences of Royal Marriage in Fifteenth-century
England”, in Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces, in Later Medieval England, ed. Ralph A. GRIFFITHS,
Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1981, p.45.
25 FABYAN Robert, The New Chronicles of England and France, ed. Henry ELLIS, F.C & J. Rivington, London,
1811, p.618.
19
This marriage was made without the king’s consent, for he feared George would get too
much influence if he married such a wealthy inheritor. Anne Neville, for her part, was
first married to Edward of Westminster, Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou’s son, in 1470,
to seal the alliance between her father and the exiled queen. But after the death of her
father at the battle of Barnet, and of her husband at the battle of Tewkesbury, she was left
a young widow, and co-heiress, with her sister, to the great wealth and estates of the earl
of Warwick. Her mother, Anne Beauchamp, countess of Warwick, was still alive but kept
prisoner at Beaulieu Abbey; while her sister’s share of the Warwick inheritance was held
by her husband George of Clarence who was entitled to the whole property of the family,
as he had married the first born. But this did not seem to be enough for Clarence who
was seeking to gain the immediate access to the whole inheritance by excluding the
countess and Anne. But his brother Richard also had his eyes set on Anne and her
inheritance, and according to Anne Crawford, “it was, in fifteenth-century aristocratic
terms, a conventional marriage. The match of a king’s younger son or brother and an
English heiress had good precedents, since it provided for him without depleting royal
resources26.” Right after the death of Anne’s first husband, Clarence claimed the rights of
guardian over her, and refused Richard’s suit27. Then, as the Second Crowland
Continuator tells us, Clarence

caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his
brother where she was: as he was afraid of a division of the earl’s property, which
he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to
share it with any other person28.
But Richard did manage to find Anne, who, according to the Crowland chronicler, was
disguised as a kitchen-maid, he then sent her to the sanctuary of St Martin’s Church so
she could escape Clarence’s hold over her. In the meantime, Richard negotiated her hand
with Clarence and their brother the king. The situation was tense, and Clarence is said to
have replied to Edward arguing with him at that time: “he may well have my Lady, sister-
in-law, but we shall part no livelihood29.” From the tone of the Paston Letters written at
that time, we can gather that it seemed very much likely that the two brothers would take
up arms30. In 1472, by mid-February, Clarence had unwillingly agreed to a marriage
without any division of property. On 22 April 1472, a dispensation from affinity that had

26 Ibid., p.39.
27 BARNFIELD Marie, “Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and
Matrimony”, The Ricardian, 17, 2007, p.5.
28 RILEY Henry T. (ed.), Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland with the Continuations by Peter of Blois and
anonymous writers, Bohn’s Antiquarian Library, London, 1854, p.469.
29 Paston Letters, II, p.92, quoted in CWR, p.242.
30 CWR, pp.242-243.
20
arisen from Anne’s marriage to Edward of Westminster, who was blood cousin to
Richard, was delivered. In the papal records, there is no trace of dispensation from the
impediment of consanguinity – as Anne and Richard were cousin in the second degree,
according to the Germanic computation – but it is very much likely that this impediment
had already been absolved, since to be valid, a dispensation had to cover all
impediments31. The marriage between Richard and Anne was eventually celebrated in
Westminster by mid-July, without Clarence’s consent, but with the mediation and
permission of king Edward. However, regarding the Warwick inheritance, nothing was
settled. The countess of Warwick was petitioning anyone who could restore her estate and
allow her to leave Beaulieu Sanctuary:

In absence of clerkes, she hathe wretyn lettres in that behalfe to the kynges highnes
with her owne hand. And not only makyng suche labores, suytes and meanes to the
Kynges Highnes, sothely also to the Quenes good grace, to my ryght redoghted lady
the kynges moder, to my lady the kynges eldest doughter, to my lordes the kynges
brethren, to my ladyes the kynges Susters, to my lady of Bedford moder to the
Quene, and to other ladyes noble of this realme32.
But her petition did not have the desired effect. It is possible that the royal ladies to whom
she wrote put first the interests of Clarence and Gloucester, their brothers, sons or
brothers in law. When Parliament met in late 1472, she drew up another petition to the
Commons but that one also seems to have been rejected. By the end of May, the countess
of Warwick was allowed to join Gloucester’s household in the North. Clarence took up
arms claiming he would deal with the duke of Gloucester. According to the Milanese
ambassador in France, Christofforo di Bollato, writing to Galeazzo Maria Sforza in
February 1474, Clarence’s grudge against Gloucester was due to his marriage with Anne:
“by force [he] had taken to wife the daughter of the late Earl of Warwick [and] was
constantly preparing for war with the Duke of Clarence”33. That this old argument was
revived may show a real fear that the presence of the countess of Warwick in Richard’s
household may be used against Clarence. King Edward eventually forced Clarence to a
settlement by using Parliament: he first confiscated Clarence’s lands and then dealt with
the heart of the matter34. The final agreement, drawn up in the parliament session of
1474, divided the estates between the two brothers at the expense of the countess:

The Kyng […] hath ordeyned, established and enacted, that George Duc of
Clarence, and Isabell his wyf, Richard Duc of Gloucestr, and Anne his wyfe,
doughters and heires to Richard Nevill late Erle of Warwyk, and doughters and

31 BARNFIELD Marie, “Diriment Impediments”, op. cit., p.5.

32 MS Cotton British Museum, Julius B. XII fol. 317, quoted by BARNFIELD Marie, “Diriment
Impediments”, op. cit., p.5.
33 CSP Milan, I, p.177.
34 BARNFIELD Marie, “Diriment Impediments”, op. cit., pp.5-6.
21
 heires apparantes to Anne Countess of Warwyk, late wyfe to the seid Erle, shall
from hensforth have, possed, enherit and enjoy, as in the right of their seid wyfes,
all Honours, Lordships, Castels, Townes, Maners, Loodes, Tenementes, Liberties,
Fraunchises, Possessions and Enheritaments, which were or be belongyng to the
seid Anne Countes of Warwyk […] to have and to hold to the seid Dukes, and their
seid wyfes, and to the heires of their seid wyfes, in like maner and fourme, as yf the
seid Countes were nowe naturally dede35.
In this dispute, the countess of Warwick was the one player whose rights could be
dismissed, since the other two were the king’s brothers and their wives. Therefore, her
rights to the Beauchamp, Despencer and Montagu and Neville estates were passed onto
her daughters and her husbands as though she was dead. Gloucester would have all the
lands in the North and the lordship in the Welsh marches while Clarence would receive
the lands in the Midlands and in the South, and since he married the eldest sister, he also
inherited of the title of earl of Warwick and Salisbury. Anne was the only one to have
hereditary claims to the Neville inheritance while her sister Isabel and herself had shared
rights to the Beauchamp, Despencer and Montagu ones. This first act, passed in July
1474, divided those latter estates between Gloucester and Clarence. As for the Neville
inheritance, another act was passed during the next parliamentary session in 147536. Anne
inherited the lordships of Glamorgan and Abergavenny and these appear to have been
the source of her income as queen, since her husband made no further provisions for her
when he became king37.

That Anne Neville was at the heart of such a dispute between the royal brothers
shows that the large and rich estates to which she was inheritor was a key element in the
political play. Before the division of the Warwick inheritance, George of Clarence was the
wealthiest magnate in England – now, he had to share that status with his younger
brother. Besides, his wife’s wealth and lands must have been a strong asset in Richard’s
later seizure of the throne: thanks to the wealth he acquired, he could afford to rally
supporters, or take up arms in a show of force, while her lands in the north offered him a
stronghold of loyal supporters.

B – With Alliances: Political and Diplomatic Assets

More commonly, a royal marriage was made to confirm a new alliance or
strengthen an old one. As Helen Shears highlights it, among the criteria for choosing a
queen, the potential bride’s family was always taken into account, since it was from there

35 Rotuli Parliamentorum, vol. VI, London, 1783?, p100, emphasis mine.

36 HICKS Michael, Anne Neville, Queen to Richard III, Tempus, Stroud, 2006, p.140.
37 CRAWFORD Anne, “The King’s Burden?” op. cit., p.47.
22
that diplomatic and strategic alliance stemmed. She also points out the advantages a
foreign queen or an English one presented: “a foreign queen could bring potential
alliances to her husband’s country, while a native-born queen might further elevate an
already powerful family and link them more closely to the throne38.” As seen earlier,
Margaret of Anjou’s marriage corresponds perfectly to common diplomatic proceedings.
France and England had managed to negotiate a truce, but the two countries were not
on an equal footing: Charles VII, king of France was increasingly powerful, while the
English monarchy was too poor to pay its military commanders overseas. Early in 1444,
the earl of Suffolk, William de la Pole, was sent as ambassador to negotiate peace with
Charles VII. No consequential treaty could be made because Charles VII’s main request
was that Henry VI renounce to his claim to the French throne – but this was not
conceivable for the earl of Suffolk. So, the earl only managed to negotiate a truce of
twenty-two months. To seal this truce, Charles had a daughter he could marry, but a
direct alliance with England was too engaging, hence the choice of Margaret of Anjou.
She was the daughter of René of Anjou, brother-in-law to the king, and king of Jerusalem
Aragon and Sicily, but in name only. She brought with her the dowry of Minorca and
Majorca over which her father never had any control39. Still, this marriage symbolised a
long-awaited conclusion to a long-lasting war. Through the heirs Margaret was expected
to produce, she would guarantee international peace and national stability40. There was
first a ceremony to celebrate the betrothal in May in Tours, where the earl of Suffolk
stood as proxy for the king. The actual marriage took place on 23 April 1445 at Titchfield
Abbey in Hampshire. But soon enough, her foreign origin and the association between
her coming to England and the handover of Maine and Anjou started to be used against
her. The young, beautiful queen who was to bring peace was now seen as a greedy
woman, serving the interests of her French relatives.

Among the four queens of the Wars of the Roses, Elizabeth of York was one of the
most politically powerful. She was the daughter of Edward IV, and a princess in her own
right. From the beginning, she was to be a powerful asset: according to Helen Shears, she
was “a valuable marriage commodity from her birth41.” Elizabeth could be queen in her
own right and thus her husband, no matter his ascendency could be at least king consort:
this idea is rarely expressed as plainly as in Warkworth’s Chronicle when he mentions a

38 SHEARS Helen, “The Queen’s Blood: A Study of Family Ties during the Wars of the Roses”, Summer
Research, 16, 2010, p.2.
39 LAYNESMITH, The Last Medieval Queens, p.43.
40 DRIMMER Sonja, “Beyond Private Matter: A Prayer Roll for Queen Margaret of Anjou”, Gesta, 53,
n°1, mars 2014, p.98.
41 SHEARS Helen, “The Queen’s Blood”, op. cit., p.9.
23
promise of alliance that was made by Edward IV between his daughter and Lord
Montagu’s son:

the kynge made Lord Montagu Marquys Montagu and mad hys son duke off
Bedford, which schuld wedde the princesse, þe kynges eldest doughtour, which by
possibilite schulde be kyng of Englond42.
This alliance was never completed, and other marriage was planned between Elizabeth
of York and the French dauphin, the son of Louis XI. This union was considered in 1475,
during the negotiations of the Picquigny treaty between her father king Edward, and the
French king Louis XI. Just as Margaret of Anjou, her marriage to the dauphin Charles
was meant to guarantee the peace between those two countries. But, according to the
French chronicler Philippe de Commynes, Louis XI never really considered marrying his
son to Elizabeth for she was supposedly too old43. Elizabeth was only four years older than
Charles, so it is more probable that Louis XI made this promise when he thought it was
more advantageous for him, but seven years later, when negotiating the treaty of Arras
with Maximilian, Archduke of Austria, the marriage of the dauphin Charles with
Maximilian’s daughter must have seemed more strategical.

Later on, during the reign of Richard III, the king is said to have been interested in
marrying Elizabeth of York. This was a strongly controversial union first and foremost
because the two parties were uncle and niece, and such a degree of consanguinity could
hardly be absolved by a papal dispensation. In marrying his niece, Richard would have
been able to assert even more his rightful place on the throne, and also to avoid a marriage
between Elizabeth and Henry Tudor that would strengthen Henry’s claim to the English
throne, as the Second Crowland Continuator put it: “For it appeared that in no other way
could [Richard’s] kingly power be established, or the hopes of his rival be put an end
to44.” But as the rumours of marriage between Elizabeth and Richard spread, the queen,
Anne, died on 16 March 1485. From then on it was even said that Richard had poisoned
his wife in order to marry Elizabeth. These gossips were getting out of control and to stop
tongues wagging, Richard made a public declaration that he had no intent whatsoever to
marry his niece:

The king, accordingly, […] in presence of the mayor and citizens of London, in the

42 MATHESON Lister M. (ed.), “Warkworth’s Chronicle: The Chronicle attributed to John Warkworth,
Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge”, in Death and Dissent: Two Fifteenth-century Chronicles, The Boydell
Press, Woodbridge, 1999, p.96.
43 “le Roy nostre maistre n’eut jamais vouloir d’acomplir ce mariage, car l’eage des deux n’estoit point
sortable, car la fille, qui de present est royne d’Angleterre, estoit trop plus vieille que monseigneur le
Daulphin, qui de present est nostre Roy”., COMMYNES Philippe de, Mémoires, ed. Joël BLANCHARD,
Librairie générale française, Paris, 2001, p.426.
44 Croyland, p.499.
24
 great hall of the Hospital of Saint John, [made] the said denial in a loud and distinct
voice; more, however, as many supposed, to suit the wishes of those who advised
him to that effect, than in conformity with his own45.
The Crowland continuator seems to have believed the rumours were true, as he hints at
Richard’s reluctance to renounce to this marriage. But according to Marie Barnfield, such
a marriage was not in Richard’s interests. The rumour of incestuous relationship would
have only darkened his image. Furthermore, one of the key elements of Richard’s
usurpation was that he had declared Edward’s children illegitimate. Wishing to share his
throne with Elizabeth would infer that he admitted her legitimacy, “thereby not only
labelling him a usurper but also corroborating the rumours that he had killed her
brothers46.”

At the same time, Henry Tudor was preparing to land in England with an army
made of Frenchmen, former Lancastrians, and Yorkist supporters who were still loyal to
Edward IV. The latter group’s support was acquired thanks to the promise Henry made
of marrying Elizabeth of York once he would be king. The match was arranged by their
respective mothers, Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville, in a conspiracy to
overthrow Richard III. According to Charles Ross, this proposed marriage “diverted
much lingering Yorkist sentiment to Henry Tudor47.” Many Yorkists would have
regarded Elizabeth as the rightful inheritor of the English throne, now that her brothers
were dead. But it was not conceivable that she ruled as queen regnant. Thus, by her
marriage to Henry Tudor, she would still become queen of England, as she ought to48.
Besides bringing more Yorkist supporters to Henry Tudor, she also made him a fitter
choice of king. His claim to the throne was real, but it went back to John of Gaunt through
his mother’s line, a doubtful one. His mother, Margaret of Beaufort belonged to the
Beauforts, earls of Somerset who descended from John of Gaunt’s marriage to his mistress
Katherine Swynford. In 1406, Henry IV, John of Gaunt’s son from his first marriage,
issued letters patents confirming the legitimacy of the Beauforts, but also excluding them
from any claim to the throne. As the Beauforts had been already legitimised by an act of
Parliament during Richard II’s reign, the legality of Henry IV’s actions was debatable.
The facts remained that Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne was existing but weak. To
strengthen it, he used one of the old ways one could acquire the English throne: by the
victory in battle. Indeed, on 22 August 1485, Henry Tudor won at the battle of Bosworth,

45 Ibid., p.500.
46 BARNFIELD Marie, “Diriment Impediments”, op.cit, p.8.
47 ROSS Charles D., Richard III, Eyre Methuen, London, 1981, p.227.
48 SHEARS Helen, “The Queen’s Blood”, op. cit., p.10.
25
where Richard III was killed. Henry’s first Parliament stressed above all his kingship by
right of conquest and only secondly his lineage. During that same Parliament, members
of the Parliament officially requested him to remember his oath to marry Elizabeth, which
he did in January 148649. By this marriage, Henry fully completed his rise to the throne,
contrary to what was written in an oration to the pope, following their marriage: “at the
request of all the lords of the kingdom, [Henry] consented to marry Elizabeth, daughter
of Edward IV, though he was free to have made a profitable foreign alliance50.” Indeed,
Henry must not have had such room for choice, and as the Crowland continuator wrote
it, Henry’s first Parliament annulled the charge of bastardy against Edward IV’s children,
and

a discussion took place, and that, too, with the king’s consent, relative to his
marriage with the lady Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of king Edward; in whose person
it appeared to all that every requisite might be supplied, which was wanting to make good the title
of the king himself 51.
The Burgundian chronicler Jean Molinet does not seem to have been aware of the details
of Henry Tudor’s ascendency, as he wrote that Richmond only became king “by right of”
Elizabeth52. But Elizabeth’s strongest claim to the throne was to be an impediment for
Henry. In order to appear as king in his own right – and not by marriage, as mere king
consort – he first arranged for his own coronation on 30 October 1485. Only when he
was king by himself did he marry Elizabeth, on 18 January 1486. And it is only after the
birth of their first son, in the following September, that Elizabeth was crowned queen, on
25 November 1487, almost two years after her marriage to Henry.

Chapter III – Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV:

marrying “a lady of humble origin”
The one queen who stands out among the four queens of the Wars of the Roses is
Elizabeth Woodville. As seen previously, Margaret of Anjou’s and Elizabeth of York’s
marriages as well as Anne Neville’s first marriage were to strengthen strategically
diplomatic alliances, while Anne Neville’s second marriage to Richard of Gloucester was

49 MUDAN FINN Kavita, The Last Plantagenet Consorts. Gender, Genre and Historiography, 1440-1627, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York, 2012, p.24.
50 GAIRDNER James, (ed.), Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, 2 vols,
Longman, London, 1861, quoted by MUDAN FINN Kavita, The Last Plantagenet Consorts. Gender, Genre
and Historiography, 1440-1627, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2012, p.24.
51 Croyland, p.512, emphasis mine.
52 “Le traité du mariage fut faict du comte Richemont et de Elisabeth, aisnée fille du roi Edouard,
trespassé; par le droit de laquelle il fut honorablement couronné roi d’Angleterre”, MOLINET Jean,
Chroniques, vol. 2, ed. Jean-Alexandre BUCHON, Verdière, Paris, 1828, p.410.
26
primarily made to secure wealth and lands on Richard’s part. Elizabeth Woodville’s
marriage to Edward IV fits in none of these categories and was going against most of the
criteria taken into account when choosing a queen in late medieval England.

A – Elizabeth Woodville’s Background

Elizabeth Woodville belonged to a country family from the low nobility. Her
mother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg was the daughter of Pierre, count of Saint Pol, who
was an allied of king Henry V in France. In 1433 she had married John, duke of Bedford,
regent of France for Henry VI. But when her first husband died, she remarried with her
chamberlain’s son, Richard Woodville. He was created Lord Rivers in 1449 and stood on
Henry VI’s side until 1461. Around 1452, Elizabeth, their eldest daughter, had married
a Lancastrian knight, Sir John Grey of Groby from whom she had two sons. He died
fighting for Henry VI in the second battle of St Albans, in 1461. Indeed, the Greys and
the Woodvilles had been loyal Lancastrians. After the Lancastrian defeat of Towton, the
Woodvilles changed side, were pardoned by Edward IV and became loyal to him. More
than a year before Elizabeth married Edward IV, her father was already a royal
councillor. The Woodvilles had estates in Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire,
Buckinghamshire, Rutland and Kent. By the end of the 1460s, they had managed to
marry into noble families, such as those of Buckingham, Exeter, Norfolk, Arundel, Essex,
Grey of Ruthyn and Herbert53. Despite her mother’s ascendency, Elizabeth Woodville’s
modest pedigree was not enough for a suitable queen.

Elizabeth was the first English-born queen since the Conquest: this meant that she
could not bring any new allies to Edward. And as she was relatively low born, she could
not either bring wealth or lands. But what troubled the most her contemporaries,
according to the chronicles, was that she was a widow. She had two children from her
previous marriage and was five years older than Edward. As I have argued earlier,
virginity was a chief element in the choice of a queen. The fourteenth- and fifteenth-
century canonists had also developed the argument that a second marriage was mainly
motivated by lust and desire for continued sex, some even used the term “bigamy54.” As
the ideal was to maintain chastity within marriage, a widow refusing to marry again was
praised by many writers: in his book, Sir Geoffrey reserves a whole chapter to widow
women. He accumulates stories about widows who were urged to marry but refused and

53 LANDER Jack R., Crown and Nobility, 1450-1509, Edward Arnold, London, 1976, pp.105-109.
54 CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins”, op. cit., pp.48, 58.
27
became even more honourable because of it:

Après je vous diray d’une dame, femme à chevalier compaignon, qui est vesve dès
le tems de la bataille de Crécy, il y a xxvj ans. Celle bonne dame estoit moult belle
et juenne, et moult a esté demandée de plusieurs lieux. Mais oncques marier ne se
voulst, ains a touz jours nourry ses enffans moult honnorablement55.
Elizabeth Woodville was not fit to be a queen because of her origin but also because her
second marriage could be interpreted in terms of insatiable desire and lust.

B – The Marriage
Marriage could be an invaluable tool with which the king could strengthen his
position at home or abroad. As early as October 1461, Lord John Wenlock was sent by
Edward IV on a diplomatic mission and proposed Mademoiselle de Bourbon, niece of
Duke Philip of Burgundy, and sister-in-law to Charles, Count of Charolais, Philip’s heir.
This alliance would serve to secure the position of the House of York and neutralise the
Lancastrian threat. But the Burgundians cut off the negotiations because of Edward’s
precarious position56. By 1464, the earl of Warwick was in the middle of negotiating a
marriage between Edward and a French princess. Chief among the candidates was Bona
of Savoy, sister-in-law to Louis XI. Edward IV never showed open opposition to
Warwick’s plan, and so the earl began to make arrangements for his departure. The
English Embassy obtained safe conducts, and Warwick was to go to France with Lord
Wenlock. They were expected at St Omer at the beginning of October57. According to
Michael Hicks, Edward’s marriage with Bona was not the only option for Edward. Some
other alliances were considered: a Scottish candidate, as well as Isabella of Castile, sister
of King Henry IV58. In any case, all of these potential marriages were out of discussion
when Edward announced his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. He made the
announcement to his council, gathered in Reading Abbey, on Michaelmas day (28
September) in 1464. Elizabeth was presented to the lords and accompanied into the abbey
by the earl of Warwick and the duke of Clarence, whatever their opinion about the
marriage might have been.

We don’t know what the immediate reaction of the Lords to this announcement
was. But what is clear is that by marrying Elizabeth, Edward had disregarded the previous
potential alliances that were in negotiation, and the advantages that they could have

55 MONTAIGLON Anatole de (ed.), Le Livre du Chevalier, op. cit., p.221.

56 KETTLE Andrew, “Parvenus in Politics: The Woodvilles, Edward IV and the baronage, 1464-1469”,
The Ricardian, 15, 2005, p.3, 7.
57 OMAN Charles, Warwick the Kingmaker, Macmillan, London, 1891, p.161.
58 HICKS Michael, Warwick the Kingmaker, Blackwell, Oxford, 1998, p. 261.
28
brought. Bona of Savoy for example would have brought a princely dowry that could
have benefitted the English monarchy’s finances.

Notwithstanding the Duchess of york his mother was so sore therewith, that she
diswaded the mariage […] alleging that it was his honor, profite and surety also, to
mary in a noble progeny out of his realm, whereupon depended gret strength to his
estate by the affinytie & great possibilitie of encrease of his possessions59.
Thomas More’s Cecily voices here a real issue about this marriage and shows true political
acuity. Elizabeth Woodville didn’t bring Edward anything valuable, despite the guarantee
that she could bear children. Jack Lander has tried to show that Edward’s choice of queen
was not totally reckless. Indeed, after he became king, Edward sought to reconcile with
the Lancastrians who had fought against him. Seen from this angle, his marriage with
Elizabeth Woodville could have been strategic: he had married a woman whose family
had been loyal Lancastrian since the beginning, and who had Lancastrian connections. It
could be seen as a public sign to other Lancastrians that he was willing to bury the
hatchet60. And at the same time Edward was arranging marriages between the Woodvilles
and the high nobility, he was also building up the power of the Nevilles. Therefore, he
could encourage the advancement of diverse families in order to avoid depending too
much on one group61. Nevertheless, according to Michael Hicks, the Woodville’s
advancement was excessive compared to their lowly origins62. The fact remains that
Elizabeth Woodville did cost less to the monarchy than Margaret of Anjou’s marriage
did: she was given a dower about £4,500, being less than half that of Margaret of Anjou.

What appears clearly is that Edward’s motivations in marrying Elizabeth were not
strategic, and that this marriage was first and foremost made for love, or at least desire.
Polydore Vergil wrote that Edward “was led by blynde affection, and not by reule or
reason63”, casting Elizabeth as a kind of mesmerising woman, who had charmed the king.
In Dominic Mancini’s retelling of Elizabeth and Edward’s meeting and marriage the
author emphasised Edward’s foolishness and his primary motive, that was desire.
According to him, Edward “behaved for a while in all things too dissolutely64”, he
presented Edward as a young man caught up in his passions.

One of the ways he indulged his appetites was to marry a lady of humble origin,
named Elizabeth […] when the king first fell in love with her beauty of person and

59 MORE, Richard III, p.61-62.

60 SHEARS Helen, “The Queen’s Blood”, op. cit., p.5.
61 LANDER Jack R., Crown and Nobility, 1450-1509, Edward Arnold, London, 1976, p.112.
62 HICKS Michael, “The changing role of the Wydevilles in Yorkist politics to 1483”, in Patronage, Pedigree
and Power in Later Medieval England, ed, Charles ROSS, Gloucester 1979, pp. 60-86.
63 VERGIL, Three Books, p.116.
64 MANCINI Dominic, The Usurpation of Richard the Third, ed. C.A. John ARMSTRONG, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1936, p.75.
29
 charm of manner, he could not corrupt her virtue by gifts or menaces65.
Here we find the literary topos of the righteous lady refusing to abandon her virtue, even
to the king. This is emphasised in the following description he made of their encounter.

The story runs that when Edward placed a dagger at her throat, to make her submit
to his passion, she remained unperturbed and determined to die rather than live
unchastely with the king. Whereupon Edward coveted her much the more, and he
judged the lady worthy to be a royal spouse, who could not be overcome in her
constancy even by and infatuated king66.
This story of the dagger is very much likely invented but serves here as a demonstration
of Elizabeth’s virtuousness. A similar story may be found in Antonio Cornazzano’s
account of the same meeting. This Italian, writing four years after the event, wrote
another version of Mancini’s story where Elizabeth threatens Edward with a dagger after
he offered her to become his mistress. Another writer emphasised Elizabeth’s virtuousness
and its effect of Edward’s affection for her, without mentioning any dagger: Thomas
More, who wrote almost fifty years after the event. In his version of Elizabeth and
Edward’s encounter, Elizabeth shows both virtue and modesty:

she shewed him plaine, that as she wist herself to simple to be his wife, so thought
she her self to good to be his concubine. The king much merueling of her
constaunce […] so muche estemed her contynence and chastitie, that he set her
vertue in the stede of possession & riches67.
These three writers set the date of the marriage on 1 May 1464: the first day of May was
commonly known as Love Day, taking its roots in pagan religions and pre-Christian
traditions. But we don’t have any evidence that the marriage took place that day. What is
very likely is that it had taken place before August 1464, when Lord Hastings was given
the wardship of Thomas Grey, Elizabeth’s first son.

C – The Opposition to the Marriage

Elizabeth’s low birth, the fact that she was a widow, the difficult position Warwick
was put in towards the French, and the missed opportunity of a foreign marriage that
could have strengthened Edward’s position made Elizabeth Woodville an unfit queen and
most of all, it made her the target of much criticism. According to the Crowland
continuator, Edward’s fault was that he did not seek the advice of his councillors, or of
the nobles of the kingdom:

king Edward, prompted by the ardour of youth, and relying entirely on his own choice,
without consulting the nobles of the kingdom, privately married the widow of a certain

65 Ibid.
66 Ibid.
67 MORE, Complete Works, p.61.
30
 knight, Elizabeth by name68.
This issue is also broached by Caspar Weinreich, the Danzing chronicler who wrote: “the
king took this one against the will of his lords69.” Indeed, the nobles were here to advice
the king in important matters, such as his choice of bride. By marrying secretly and
unadvised, Edward betrayed the trust of those same lords, and of his close Yorkist allies.
This was a risky move for a king who had accessed the throne in such circumstances as
he had, and whose situation was precarious. He needed the support of the lords, now as
much as he had when fighting for the throne, three years before. Thomas More perverted
this idea of counsel in order to introduce Edward’s impulsiveness: “taking counsaile of his
desyre, determined in al possible hast to mary her70.” As seen earlier, many chroniclers
writing about this marriage underlined Edward’s inconstancy, and his childish attitude,
unfit for a king. Another chronicler, Polydore Vergil, cast Elizabeth almost as a sorceress
who, as seen previously, bewitched the king:

king Edwardes mynde alteryd uppon the soddayn, and he tooke to wyfe Elyzabeth
[…] which mariage because the woman was of meane caulyng he kept secret […]
Wherfor whan yt was brutyd abrode thrwogh the realme that the same was
perfytyd, all men incontynent woonderyd, that the nobylytie treuly chafyd (scorned),
and cast owt open speaches that the king had not doone according to his dignitie;
they found muche fault with him in that mariage, and imputyd the same to his
dishonor, as the thing wherunto he was led by blynde affection, and not by reule or
reason71.
According to Vergil, the nobles believed Elizabeth had led the king astray, and she was
regarded as a negative influence over her husband. But it is more likely that, despite their
personal opinion about this marriage, the nobles showed their support to their king and
accepted the marriage. Standing up against the king’s choice of queen would have meant
treason and no noble was ready to go to such lengths – yet, at least.

The other main aspect on which this marriage was criticised was that the bride
was not a virgin. Here again, Caspar Weinreich expressed this issue: “Although the
coronation in England demands that a king should marry a virgin whoever she may be,
legitimately born and not a widow, yet the king took this one against the will of his lords72.”
I have previously developed the importance of virginity in the choice of a potential bride.

68 Croyland, pp.439-440, emphasis mine.

69 VISSER-FUCHS, Livia, “English Events in Caspar Weinreich's Danzig Chronicle, 1461—1495”, The
Ricardmn, 7, n°95, 1986, p.31, quoted by CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins”, op. cit.,
p.47.
70 MORE, Richard III, p.61.
71 VERGIL, Three Books, p.116.
72 VISSER-FUCHS, Livia, “English Events in Caspar Weinreich's Danzig Chronicle, 1461—1495”, The
Ricardian, 7, n°95, 1986, p.31 quoted by CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins”, op. cit.,
p.47.
31
One strong opposition on that point is related by Thomas More, in his History of King
Richard the Third, and comes from Edward’s mother, Cecily Neville, duchess of York. More
made her say the following:

Wheras the only widowhed of Elizabeth Gray though she wer in al other thinges
conuenient for you shold yet suffice as me semeth to refrain you from her mariage,
sith it is an vnsitting thing, & a veri blemish, & highe disparagement, to the sacre
magesty of a prince, that ought as night to approche priesthode in clenes as he doth
in dignitie, to be defouled with bigamy in his first mariage73.
We have here a tangible example of the association between a second marriage and
bigamy. More’s Cecily also voiced the idea that a king has to be Christ-like in his dignity
and purity. Hence her concern that her son be stained by this unconventional and highly
controversial marriage. The underlying idea was that if he had asked advice, either from
the lords, or from his family, everyone would have advised him against it. Again, the
primary fault is to have married secretly, and without seeking advice. The other element
that Cecily pointed out in Thomas More’s account is that by marrying below himself,
Edward had overlooked his royal ascendency: “it was not princely to mary hys owne
subiect, no gret occasion leading thervnto […] but onely as it were a rich man that would
mary his mayde, onely for a litle wanton dotage vppon her parson74.” Through his father,
Richard Plantagenet, third duke of York, Edward was prince of royal blood three times
over, while Elizabeth came from comparatively obscure origins. Her family proved so by
continually affirming their European ascendency, redesigning their coat of arms and
adopting the title of earl Rivers instead of Woodville: they attempted to fabricate
themselves a noble lineage75.

This leads us to the last element that was used against Elizabeth Woodville: her
family. Their advancement was made mainly thought two means: titles and grants, and
marriages. The titles were limited to the queen’s brother, and her father. Anthony
Woodville was made knight of the Garter, while Richard Lord Rivers was created
treasurer of England on 4 March 1466, constable of England on 24 August 1467, and he
was elevated Earl Rivers on 24 May 146676. But it is really through marriages that the
Woodvilles were advanced. By the end of 1466, five of the queen’s sisters, her eldest son
and her brother had been married into the nobility, far above their rank and above any

73 MORE, Richard III, p.62.

74 Ibid.
75 KETTLE Andrew, “Parvenus in Politics: The Woodvilles, Edward IV and the baronage, 1464-1469”,
The Ricardian, 15, 2005, p.9.
76 PIGDGEON Lynda, “Antony Wydevile, Lord Scales and Earl Rivers: Family, Friends and Affinity, Part
1”, in The Ricardian, 15, 2005, p.14.
32
rank they could have achieved on their own77. Anthony Woodville married Elizabeth de
Scales Baroness Scales on her own right and widow of Henry Bourchier, first Earl of
Essex. By this marriage, he became Lord Scales in his wife’s right, and this is how he
would make himself known, before taking the title of Earl Rivers after his father’s death
in 1469. In January 1465, John Woodville, Lord Rivers’ second son, married Catherine
Neville, Dowager Duchess of Norfolk. The groom was only nineteen while the bride was
sixty-five: this marriage was considered by everyone as proof that the Woodvilles were
grasping and greedy, it was described as a diabolical marriage (maritagium diabolicum) by
the chronicler William Worcester. Sometime before Elizabeth’s coronation in 1465,
Catherine Woodville was married to Henry Stafford, second Duke of Buckingham.
According to Dominic Mancini, Buckingham resented this marriage to a woman of
inferior birth. We have no evidence of this, so it is also possible that the duke saw this
marriage as a proof of his proximity to the king, and thus more as an honour than as a
burden. Mary Woodville married William Herbert, second Earl of Pembroke, in
September 1466. In the beginning of 1466, Margaret Woodville married Thomas
FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel. Anne Woodville married William Bourchier, Viscount
Bourchier sometime before August 1467. Thomas Grey, Elizabeth’s eldest son from her
first marriage married Lady Anne Holland, daughter of Henry Holland and Anne of
York, and niece to the king. Charles Ross, in his Edward IV, has pointed out the apparent
lack of resistance to these marriages on the part of the nobility and the families into which
the Woodvilles were marrying. This is probably due to the advantages that stemmed from
those marriages and the newfound or renewed proximity to the king. Furthermore,
refusing to marry into the queen’s family would mean immediate withdrawal of royal
favour78. The rapid advancement of the Woodville certainly caused frustration to the
nobles and more precisely to those closest to the king, such as Warwick or Clarence. But
to assume that this would be the only reason for their eventual rebellion is wrong. The
causes for this rupture are multiple: for example, the second Crowland continuator
suggests that it was Edward’s alliance with Burgundy and the marriage of his sister
Margaret that alienated Warwick. Nonetheless, the Woodville focused much of the
criticism of that time, as it appears in Clarence’s manifesto released on 12 July, the day
after his forbidden marriage with Isabelle Neville. Clarence, Warwick and the archbishop
of York, George Neville, brother of Warwick, accused the

disceyvabille covetous rule and gydynge of certeyne ceducious persones; that is to

77 KETTLE Andrew, “Parvenus in Politics”, op. cit., p.11.

78 SHEARS Helen, “The Queen’s Blood”, op. cit., p.11.
33
 say, the Lord Ryvers, the Duchess of Bedford his wyf, Ser William Herbert, Erle of
Penbroke, Humfrey Stafford, Erle of Devenshire, the Lordis Scalis and Audeley,
Ser John Wydevile, and his brethren, Ser John Fogge, and other of theyre
myschevous rule opinion and assent, wheche have cause oure seid sovereyn Lord
and his seid realme to falle in grete poverte of myserie, disturbynge the
mynystracion of the lawes, only entendyng to thaire owen promocion and
enriching79.
Here we find a recurring theme: whenever the kingdom’s government was not successful,
when the monarchy was in trouble, the king could not be blamed for it, but his councillors
and entourage could and indeed were.

In marrying into a humble English family, Edward wasted a valuable diplomatic

asset. His impulsive attitude was not that of a king, and his councillors must have felt some
disappointment. But the later troubles that he would experience cannot all be linked to
this marriage and the advancement of the Woodvilles. Indeed, even if most of them
married into the nobility, only few of them were truly close to the king and could influence
his decisions. However, this marriage did create some tension during Edward’s first part
of his reign, in an already unstable environment80.

79 WARKWORTH John, A Chronicle of the First Thirteen Years of the Reign of King Edward the Fourth, ed. J.O.
Halliwell, Camden Society 1839, p. 46, quoted by KETTLE Andrew, “Parvenus in Politics”, op. cit.,
pp.18-19.
80 SHEARS Helen, “The Queen’s Blood”, op. cit., p.20.
34
 SECOND PART

QUEEN CONSORT: THE EXERCISE OF QUEENSHIP

I – The Queen’s Civic Power: Staging Queenship

In different stages of her life, a queen performed ceremonies that reflected her
power, the way her subjects saw her or how she wanted to appear to them. Those
ceremonies were a staging of queenship through some recurring themes. I will focus here
on three ceremonies: the coronation, the royal entry and the burial. Her role as queen
was thus constructed through formalised ritual displays1.

A – The Coronation: Establishing the Queen’s Role

The first stage of a queen’s coronation was her journey through London to reach
the Tower where she was to stay prior to the ceremony. During this journey, pageants
were set up in the streets she passed through. In Margaret of Anjou’s coronation triumph
in London in 1445, seven pageants were organised. According to Gordon Kipling, they
were roughly divided roughly equally between a reflexion upon Margaret as a bearer of
grace, and a prophecy of the spiritual ascent to glory she would receive as a result2. The
first four pageants welcomed Margaret as a bearer of grace, as she brought peace to a
kingdom that had been at war for too long. The first two pageants echoed the reasons of
Margaret’s marriage and the hope that she brought. It was hoped that her marriage would
end the war between France and England: this would be achieved through the production
of an heir to the throne. At London Bridge, the goddess Plenty greeted Margaret as “cause
of welth, ioie, and abundaunce” while Peace predicted that “Pees shall approche
[between] the reawmes two, England and Fraunce3.” Further on the bridge, a pageant
representing Noah’s Ark compared her to “the Doue that brought the braunche of pees”4.
The third and fourth pageant emphasised Margaret’s key role as bringer of peace. She
was not just a political pawn anymore, but a virgo mediatrix, an agent of God’s grace. At
Leadenhall, the allegory of the Four Daughters of God was represented: Mercy and Truth
had met, while Justice and Peace had kissed. Through Margaret, “God and Grace [has

1 PARSONS John Cami, “‘Never a body buried in England with such solemnity and honour’: The
Burials and Posthumous Commemorations of English Queens to 1500”, in Queens and Queenship in
medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. DUGGAN, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 1997, p.317.
2 KIPLING Gordon, Enter the King: Theatre, Liturgy, and Ritual in the Medieval Civic Triumph, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 2007, p.191.
3 Ibid., p.192.
4 Ibid.
35
set] twixt reawmes tweyn stedfast loue5.” Margaret was thus associated to Christ: just like
God sent his son to earth, he had sent Margaret to bring “this tyme of Grace”. The fourth
pageant represented Saint Margaret. But while she is usually represented as slaying the
dragon, here she was represented as a mediatrix. Margaret’s namesake was described as a
“conveie of Grace, Virgin moost benigne”. She prayed for the end of the war and for the
coming of angels: “Augneles of pees shall haue dominacioun”6. According to Gordon
Kipling, Margaret’s mediation between England and France reflected St Margaret’s
heavenly mediation. The fifth pageant took another turn: Margaret was no longer a
bearer of grace, she left this role behind and ascended to glory, as a reward for her
mediation and the grace she had brought. Margaret’s path through the city reflected her
path to the celestial Jerusalem. She would reach the holy city by going “from vertu to
vertu”7. The last pageant of her triumph represented Mary, as Queen of Heaven, wearing
the Apocalyptic crown of twelve stars and ascending to glory: “earthly type confronts
heavenly archetype”8. But Kipling stresses the difference between Margaret and the
Virgin: Mary can enter heaven body and soul, while Margaret must wait for the final
coming of God’s kingdom on earth in order to physically reach heaven, for now, she can
only do so spiritually. This pageant emphasised the contrast between earthly and heavenly
queenship: Margaret must “do well” if she was to reach heaven9.

The coronation then took place on the second day, after the queen’s journey to
the Tower. The queen was celebrated as a mother, whose child would “honour the whole
kingdom”10. We have a detailed description of Elizabeth Woodville’s coronation, on 26
May 1465. This account comes from a fifteenth-century manuscript kept in the Bodleian
Library and was published in 1935 by George Smith. The queen entered the abbey of
Westminster “under the canapy”, clothed “in a mantyll of purpull & a coronall vpon /
hir hede”11. She was accompanied by dukes and duchesses as well as bishops. She
proceeded into the abbey barefoot, as a penitent, which symbolised her humility, and she
held “in the / right hande þe Septor of Saint Edward & in / the lefte hande the septor of
þe Reaume12”. According to Joanna Laynesmith, this is a mistake from the author, who

5 Ibid., p.193.
6 Ibid., pp.195-196.
7 Ibid., pp.198-199.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid., p.200.
10 CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins: Queenmaking during the Wars of the Roses”, in
Young Medieval Women, ed. Katherine J. LEWIS, Noel James MENUGE and Kim M. PHILLIPS, Alan
Sutton, Stroud, 1999, p.54.
11 SMITH, Coronation of Elizabeth Wydeville, p.14.
12 Ibid., p.15.
36
must have confused the ceremonies for a king and for a queen. The Sceptre of Saint
Edward had indeed been used by Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. As for the
Sceptre of the Realm, it is not clear exactly which one Elizabeth held, but it is also likely
that it was used by kings13. Then the queen reached the altar, where she kneeled to receive
the unction. In order to do so, the archbishop had to take off the coronet she was wearing
on her loose hair. The Marian connotations here were especially strong as this coronet
was mentioned as “thatyre of virgins14.” The queen was then anointed on the head, which
was usually reserved for kings and bishops, according to Innocent III’s decretal On Holy
Unction in 120415. Then, the archbishop of Canterbury crowned her, while the archbishop
of York held the holy unction. After the coronation, the queen was brought to her
chambers where she “was newe revestyd in a / surcote of purpull16”, the colour of royalty.
The ceremonial finished on a banquet of three courses, where all of the noblemen,
noblewomen and prelates were sitting according to their rank, closer or further away from
the newly crowned queen. Joanna Laynesmith has pointed out that the most recurring
element in those ceremonies was that the queen was staged as a virgin. This was
particularly strategic for Elizabeth Woodville since everyone knew she was not one. But
presenting her with her blond hair loose, dressed in white and gold, and wearing “thatyre
of virgins”, was a way to bestow on her public body all the attributes and virtues of
virginity, whatever the physical truth might have been17.

B – The Royal Entry: The Queen’s Advent

For kings, royal entries were often modelled on the Christ’s Third Advent: the king
would make his way through the town that was transformed into a celestial Jerusalem for
the occasion, emulating his soul’s ascent to paradise. But queens could not be compared
to Christ, so the cities often turned to a female version of the Advent, filled with
iconographical references18. The two most important female versions of the Advent were
the Assumption and the Coronation of the Virgin. Queen consort owed their
transformation into queen to their husbands, so usually civic triumphs cast them in a more
passive role. Association with the Queen of Heaven could empower women but even as
such, the Virgin Mary could not judge, save or condemn, she could only intercede with
Christ and God and ask for mercy for her people. One of the elements that was often

13 LAYNESMITH, The Last Medieval Queens, p.105.

14 SMITH, Coronation of Elizabeth Wydeville, p.17.
15 CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins”, op. cit., p.55.
16 SMITH, Coronation of Elizabeth Wydeville, p.18.
17 CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins”, op. cit., pp.60-61.
18 KIPLING, Enter the King, pp.191, 292.
37
found in those pageants was the emphasis on the maternal role of the queen. When
Elizabeth Woodville entered Norwich in 1469, she was pregnant with her second child.
The pageants which greeted her showed that the citizens saw the queen’s coming, her
adventus, as prefiguring the coming of a prince. Even when the queen had more power
than usual, the civilians saw her first and foremost as a mother. This is true for Margaret
of Anjou’s entry at Coventry on 14 September 1456: at this time, she considered herself
as regent of England. Even in such circumstances, according to Kipling, the pageants
focused more on the advent of her son, Edward, who was put in a Christ-like position.
Margaret was welcomed by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah as Edward’s mother, and
not as queen. Kipling argues that the appearance of the Nine Worthies referred to a need
of a chivalric, strong, male leader, something that Margaret could not embody. He goes
as far as considering that “Coventry seems to have regarded Margaret’s entry as a kind of
triumph-by-proxy: the Queen entered the city, but Coventry received its Prince19.” On
the other hand, Joanna Laynesmith has analysed Margaret's entry in Coventry in relation
with the political situation of that time. Around January 1454, Margaret had made an
attempt to take over the regency for Henry VI had lapsed into insanity. But eventually,
the regency was granted to a council and Richard, duke of York was named protector of
the realm. After Henry regained his sanity, York’s protectorate ended, only for a second
one to be implemented after the Yorkist victory at St Albans in 1455. In February 1456,
York was forced to resign this second protectorate probably at the instigation of Margaret.
Ten days after Margaret’s entry into Coventry, several new officers were appointed in key
positions: the queen’s chancellor, Laurence Booth was made keeper of the privy seal, the
earl of Shrewsbury was appointed treasurer of England, and the king’s confessor, Bishop
Waynflete was appointed chancellor. On 7 October 1456, a largely Lancastrian council
began and sentenced the Yorkist lords responsible for the risings in Wales to
imprisonment, while York was forced to swear an oath of loyalty to Henry VI. In the
meantime, Prince Edward was given a household of his own, and a council mainly
consisting of members of the queen’s household20. The city of Coventry had been chosen
to hold the council because the Londoner’s loyalty rested more on the Yorkist side.
Therefore, Laynesmith sees Margaret’s entry in September 1456 as her entry in the new
royal capital, status that the town will effectively have during the next four years. The
entry at Coventry, even though it was made for a queen, resembled very much that of a

19 KIPLING, Enter the King, pp.315-316.

20 LAYNESMITH Joanna L., “Constructing Queenship at Coventry: Pageant and Politics at Margaret of
Anjou’s ‘Secret Harbour’”, in The Fifteenth Century III: Authority and Subversion, ed. Linda CLARK, The
Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2003, pp.138-139.
38
king, with the presence of the Nine Worthies as seen previously. The pageants were hinted
with comparisons between Margaret and the Virgin Mary, and mostly on the maternal
role of both of those queens: in one of the pageants, Edward the Confessor called
Margaret “Moder of mekenes”. Laynesmith offers an alternative analysis to Gordon
Kipling’s. For the most part, the iconographical representations used were similar to those
used for king’s entries. Kipling analysed it as an entry by proxy, but it could also be that
this iconographical representation of kingship was

intended to locate both queen and prince within a trinitarian understanding of

kingship. As God, Henry, Margaret and Edward could be in one person all three,
together effectively represented the single public body of the king21.
In Smithford Street, a pageant represented the cardinal virtues: Righteousness,
Temperance, Strength and Prudence. These virtues often appeared in mirrors for princes
and were part of the ideal a king had to fulfil. But here, the first three virtues addressed
Margaret directly. In another pageant, the Nine Worthies pledged their service to the
queen herself: there, it seemed that she did took on the role of the chivalric leader – at
least in terms of inspiring knights to fight for her, since she could not take arms22. The
final pageant featured St Margaret, the queen’s namesake, but this time, she was
represented slaying the dragon, as a powerful conquering figure. She welcomed Margaret
in the following:

Most notabull princes of wymen erthle

Dame Margarete, þe chefe myrth of þis empyre,
Ye be hertely welcum to þis ctye23.

Her speech made no mention of king Henry VI or of Prince Edward, and recognised
Margaret’s great power by casting them as head of an empire. According to Joanna
Laynesmith, this pageant conveyed the message that “her gender need not prevent Queen
Margaret from conquering her enemies”. She argues that the focus of sovereignty was no
longer the king only – since he had proven too weak on some occasions – but the royal
family as a whole, cast as a sort of Holy Trinity. And among the three persons involved,
Margaret seemed to be the only one capable of exercising power24.

21 Ibid., p.144.
22 Ibid., pp.145-146.
23 HARRIS Mary D. (ed.), The Coventry Leet Book, Kegand Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co, London, 1907,
p.292.
24 LAYNESMITH Joanna L., “Constructing Queenship at Coventry”, op. cit., p.147.
39
 C – The Queen’s Burial: Celebrating and Affirming Kingship
The final ritual of queenship was the burial of a queen. The Liber regi capelle details
the formalities of the ceremonies that were to be held in the court chapel. It described the
burial of kings, and mentioned the following:

Now the exequies of a queen who leaves this world are entirely carried out in the
form noted above, whereby anyone can easily understand from the one the form of
the other. And so it would be useless to write more fully on this25.
John Cami Parsons points out that it was only when she had passed away that a queen
reached equality with the king in terms of ritual and ceremonies. The points he makes is
that the rituals of a queen’s burial created “socially acceptable images of queenship”26.
Once they were dead, queens could no longer complement their husband’s kingship as
they had done in their lifetime. But a queen’s tomb still celebrated her lineage and
emphasised the noble ancestries of English kingship27. The burial of a queen and the
pomp that was attached to it honoured the king and his kingship as much as did the
ceremonials surrounding the queen in her lifetime. According to Parsons, the tomb of a
queen represented what he calls her “official” body: the one that had been exalted by
unction and coronation, that was a model of proper womanly behaviour. While the
queen’s physical body was, like that of any woman, marked with sin and pollution.
Particularly in the case of a queen, this physical body was also feared and posed a threat
to her contemporaries because it seemed that it prevented the king from fulfilling his
obligations to the realm. By representing the queen’s official body, her tomb put emphasis
on “her ageless nurturing-intercessory function, in contrast to the temporal limits of her
biogenetic sexual body, secreted by ritual and hidden within her tomb28.” When a queen
had died, everything that had been controversial about her disappeared and she could
more easily be celebrated as an ideal of queenship29.

Margaret of Anjou died in August 1482 in the castle of Dampierre-sur-Loire and

was buried, at her own request, in Angers Cathedral, with her parents. Anne Neville died
few years later on 16 March 1485, of sickness, probably of tuberculosis. The Crowland
continuator only tells us that she “was buried at Westminster, with no less honors than
befitted the interment of a queen30.” She was buried in an unmarked grave in the chapel

25 ULLMAN Walter (ed.), Liber regie capelle: A Manuscript in the Biblioteca Publica, Evora, Henry Bradshaw
Society, London, 1961, p.115 quoted by PARSONS, John Cami, “‘Never a body buried”, op. cit., p.318.
26 Ibid., p.319.
27 LAYNESMITH, The Last Medieval Queens, p.121.
28 PARSONS, John Cami, “‘Never a body buried”, op. cit., p.333.
29 LAYNESMITH, The Last Medieval Queens, p.121.
30 Croyland, p.499.
40
of St Edward the Confessor, alongside other kings and queens. It is probable that Richard
had planned to build a tomb – either a single one for his wife, or maybe a double one –
but his own death few months later prevented him from doing so31. Elizabeth Woodville
died on 8 June 1492 at Bermondsey Abbey. In her will, she expressed her wish to “be
buried with the bodie of my Lord at Windessore […] without pompes entreing or costlie
expensis donne thereabought32.” Her body was brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by
river, without ceremony. The only account of the funerals emphasises the poverty of the
ceremony, saying that her hearse was “suche as they use for the comyn peple w[ith] iiij
wooden candelstikk about hit33.” It also expressed the idea that a queen’s funeral should
have been much grander and splendid even though Elizabeth Woodville had retired from
court. Some historians have argued that Elizabeth’s funerals were not grand because she
had fallen from the king’s grace, but it is very much likely that Elizabeth’s wish for a
humble ceremony was authentic. Her condition as a widow implied that she could choose
to be buried as a woman, and not as a queen34. The last queen’s funerals of the period
were those of Elizabeth of York, who died on 11 February 1503. We have a detailed
account and financial records for her burial: £3,000 were spent for this occasion – while
her son’s funerals two years earlier had costed only £60035. The procession combined all
three estates: the clergy and the nobility composed the funeral cortege, while the people
were crowding the streets. As Joanna Laynesmiths observes, she had died in the Tower of
London, and so to join the Abbey of Westminster, the processions followed the same route
that the queen had taken for her coronation, sixteen years before. On her coffin, rested a
life-like effigy of the queen, in full regalia:

Clothed in the very Roabes of Estates of the Queene having her very rich Crowne
on her Head her heire about her shoulders her septer in her right Hand and her
fingers well garnised with Gould and precious Stones36.
Once the procession arrived in Westminster, the coffin was laid to rest on a hearse
decorated with the queen’s motto, “humble and reverent” and the emblems of Tudor
queenship: gold roses, portculises, fleurs de lys and Elizabeth’s arms as well as the king’s37.
In 1509, Elizabeth’s body was moved in the double tomb made by the Italian sculptor
Pietro Torrigiano: the base of the tomb was made of black marble, while the effigies and

31 LAYNESMITH, The Last Medieval Queens, p.121

32 NICHOLS John (ed.), Wills of the Kings and Queens of England, London, 1780, p.350, quoted by
LAYNESMITH, The Last Medieval Queens, p.127.
33 Ibid.
34 LAYNESMITH, The Last Medieval Queens, p.129.
35 Ibid.
36 GROSTLE Francis, ASTLE Thomas (ed.), The Antiquarian Repertory IV, London, 1807, p.657, quoted by
Ibid, p.123.
37 LAYNESMITH, The Last Medieval Queens, p.125.
41
decorations were of gilt bronze. According to Joanna Laynesmith, Elizabeth of York’s
funerals were a huge public celebration of the Tudor kingship’s prestige and an occasion
for the king’s subjects to share his grief. In this sense, the political community shared an
experience that could strengthen their sense of identity as Henry VII’s subjects38

According to John Cami Parsons, funerals “were just as important in the portrayal
and construction of the queenly office as the coronation”; moreover “it was easier (and
safer) to exalt a deceased consort than to praise the king’s living bedfellow39.”

II – A Woman’s First Duty: Childbearing

A – Insuring the Succession

The main role of a queen was to bear children in order to insure the hereditary
transmission of the crown. Before the Norman Conquest, kings were elected, so the need
for an heir was not as essential as it became: king Edward the Confessor and his wife Edith
never had any children, but she was still highly considered because they had made a vow
of chastity within marriage. After the Conquest, the criterion of accession to the throne
became more and more primogeniture. From then on, the production of an heir was vital
for the stability of the kingdom. When a queen did not have children for a while, she
began to appear less worthy of her status in the eyes of her subjects. Margaret of Anjou
didn’t bear a son for the first seven years of her marriage. In 1448, a farm labourer was
accused of claiming that

Oure Quene was none abyl to be Quene of Inglond, but and he were a pere of or
a lord of this ream […] he would be on of thaym that schuld helpe to putte her a
doun, for because that sche bereth no child, and because that we have no pryns in
this land40.
Here there is a clear association between a woman failing in her duty and a failing
kingdom: indeed, putting down a queen would mean troubles in the kingdom and perhaps
civil war. We get here that queenship was conditional: if a queen did not fulfil her duties,
she did not deserve to be queen anymore. This can also be seen in the chronology of
Elizabeth of York’s marriage and coronation. Henry did not marry her until he was
crowned king by himself. But Elizabeth’s coronation took place much later, two years
after her marriage, and only after she had produced an heir. I wouldn’t go as far as saying
that if she had not produced an heir she would not have been crowned – especially since

38 Ibid., p.127.
39 PARSONS, John Cami, “‘Never a body buried”, op. cit., pp.336-337.
40 Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Report 5: House of Lords, HMSO, London, 1876, p. 455.
42
she was already married to the king – but it hints to the fundamental importance of
childbearing for a queen. There must have been a real pressure to have children:
Margaret of Anjou’s gifts for the year 1453 included an offering for the shrine of Our
Lady of Walsingham, along with prayers involving pregnancy and childbirth and a gold
tablet – this was her most expensive present apart from the one for the king. When she
finally announced that she was expecting, Cecily of York wrote to her, describing the child
as “the most precious, most ioyfull, and most confortable erthely tresor that myght come
unto this land and to the people therof41.” Helen Maurer suggests that the prospect of a
royal birth must indeed have been welcomed with signs of joy and also probably relief.
However, even when they did produce legitimate heirs, the succession was not secure.
Margaret’s only son did reach his majority, but died in the battle of Tewkesbury in 1471,
aged 17. Elizabeth Woodville was known for her fertility: she had already two sons from
a previous marriage, and her marriage to the king produced ten children, including two
sons. But none of her son actually reigned and both of them died young, probably
murdered. Anne Neville’s only son did not survive long, since he died in 1484, aged only
ten. The Crowland continuator reads:

in the following month of April, on a day not very far distant from the anniversary
of king Edward, this only son of his [Richard’s], in whom all the hopes of the royal
succession, fortified with so many oaths, were centred, was seized with an illness of
but short duration and died at Middleham Castle, in the year of our Lord, 148442.
Like her mother, Elizabeth of York was fertile: she had eight children but only four of
them reached their majority. Moreover, her first-born son, Arthur Prince of Wales, the
heir to the throne, died in 1502, aged fifteen, just after his marriage to Catherine of
Aragon, daughter of the Spanish monarchs Isabella and Ferdinand.

B – The Fear of Women’s Sexuality

The reason why virginity was such a key element of queenship was to ensure that
first there will be an heir, and second, that he will be legitimate. In The Book of the Knight of
La Tour-Landry, Sir Geoffrey gave an insight of the dramatic outcome of a false or
illegitimate heir:

Car de faire faulx hoirs ne viendra que maulx et tribulacions ès lieux où ilz
seigneuriront et dont ilz auront la poesté, et les doulereuses mères seront livrées à

41 RAWCLIFFE Carole, “Richard, Duke of York, the King’s ‘obeisant liegeman’: a New Source for the
Protectorates of 1454 and 1455”, Historical Research, 60, 1987, p. p.237, quoted by MAURER Helen,
“Deligitimizing Lancaster: The Yorkist Use of Gendered Propaganda During the Wars of the Roses”,
in Reputation and Representation in Fifteenth-century Europe, ed. Douglas L. BIGGS, Sharon D. MICHALOVE,
A. Compton REEVES, Brill, Leiden, 2004, p.174.
42 Croyland, p.496, emphasis mine.
43
 la grant mort d’enfer, ne jamas n’en istront tant comme les advoultres qu’eles ont
fais tendront terres ne biens du mary leurs mères43.
Helen Maurer differentiates a “good” woman who was to be obedient, submissive to her
husband, patient, forgiving, pious and chaste, from a “bad” woman, who acted on her
female impulses, was disobedient, vengeful, angry, superfluous, capricious and
promiscuous. According to her, chastity was the one virtue that linked the others. This
meant that lechery was the ultimate womanly sin. Therefore, the allegations of adulterous
behaviour made against Margaret meant that her sexuality could be used to indicate that
England itself had forgotten the right order of things44. The first allusions to Margaret's
infidelity were made in the spring of 1460 by the earl of Warwick in Calais. His words
were reported by Francesco Coppini, legate to Pius II, who had joined Warwick’s
entourage. According to Coppini, Warwick called Henry “a dolt and a fool who is ruled
instead of ruling. The royal power is in the hands of his wife and those who defile the
king’s chamber45.” There was the idea that if the king could not control his wife, then he
could not control his kingdom, and conversely, whoever controlled the queen or the
rumours about her, could also control the kingdom. Here again, the private transgression
had consequences on the power of the king, which was weakened and led astray, and, on
a larger scale, on the kingdom. An English chronicle makes such a link in a subtler way.
It began by claiming that “The quene with such as were of her affynyte rewled the reame
as her lyked” and continued on the subject of her son:

The quene was defamed and desclaundered, that he that was called Prince, was nat
hir sone, but a bastard goten in avoutry; wherefore she dreding that he shulde nat
succede hys fadre in the crowne of Englond46.
It is interesting to notice that usually, Yorkist documents referred to Edward of
Westminster as the queen’s son, implying that it was not the king’s. The adultery rumours
about Margaret belonged to two categories: those disputing her son’s legitimacy, and
those undermining her status, but these questions overlapped47. Allegations of adultery
had the potential to destroy a woman’s reputation and so to discredit her actions48. This
is one of the reasons why Margaret was such a target of adultery slanders. Her

43 MONTAIGLON Anatole de (ed.), Le Livre du Chevalier de la Tour-Landry pour l’enseignement de ses filles,
Librairie Plon, Paris, 1854, p.121.
44 MAURER Helen, “Deligitimizing Lancaster”, op. cit., pp.169-170.
45 PIUS II, The Commentaries of Pius II, Book II, trans. Florence A. GRAGG, Smith College Studies in
History, Northampton, 1951, p.269, quoted by Ibid., p.178.
46 DAVIES John Silvester (ed.), An English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI
written before the Year 1471, Camden Society, Oxford, 1854, p.78.
47 LAYNESMITH Joanna L., “Telling Tale of Adulterous Queens in medieval England: From Olympias of
Macedonia to Elizabeth Woodville”, in Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies on Kings and Kingship in the
Ancient and Medieval Worlds, ed. L. MITCHELL and C. MELVILLE, Brill, Leiden, 2013, p.209.
48 MAURER Helen, “Delegitimizing Lancaster”, op. cit., p.180.
44
involvement in English politics displeased greatly the lords and chiefly Richard duke of
York, and thus all of the Yorkist supporters. By labelling her as a sexual transgressor, she
was defined as a woman out of place – thus, all of her actions could be considered as
reprehensible. After Edward IV’s proclamation as king in London, the rumours of sexual
disorder resurfaced: “In early March there were reports that Margaret and the duke of
Somerset had persuaded Henry to abdicate in favour of the prince, whereupon the queen,
prince, and duke abandoned him49.” These allegations were followed by rumours of a
plot destined to kill Henry so that Margaret could “unite with” Somerset. Helen Maurer
argues that these rumours cast Margaret as a woman unworthy of respect, a potential
murderer and it discredited all the remaining Lancastrian enterprises, now seen as
contrary to the order established by God50.

The other woman who was the target of adultery allegations was a queen mother:
Cecily Neville, mother of Edward IV and Richard III. In 1469, when Clarence and
Warwick challenged the rule of Edward IV, their principal argument was that Edward
was a bastard, and that George was the true heir. This implied that Cecily had committed
adultery. The rumour resurfaced in 1483, when Richard III seized the throne for himself.
His justification was that since Edward was a bastard and George and his descendants
had been attained for treason, he was the only legitimate heir to the throne:

he utteryd, that his fathers inherytance ought to descend to him by right, as the
eldest of all the soones which Richard his father duke of York had begotten of
Cecyly his wyfe, or as much as yt was manyfest ynowhge, and that by apparent
argument, that Edward, who had before raignyd, was a bastard, that ys, not
begotten of a right and lawfull wyfe51.
But the chroniclers who related this story were Tudor chroniclers and, according to
Joanna Laynesmith, they diverted the attention from another adultery story that could be
damaging for their own regime. By that time, Elizabeth of York, Edward’s eldest daughter
was queen, and her place on the throne was central to affirm Henry’s legitimacy as king.
Richard III’s official justification for his usurpation was that Edward IV and Elizabeth
Woodville had committed adultery because their marriage was invalid. Therefore, their
children were bastards and Richard was the real heir. According to him, before marrying
Elizabeth, Edward was already married to a daughter of the earl of Shrewsbury: “The
said King Edward duryng his lif, and the seid Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and
dampnably in adultery, against the Lawe of God and of his Church52.” This was the

49 Ibid., p.183, cf CSP Milan, I, p.55.

50 MAURER Helen, “Deligitimizing Lancaster”, op. cit., p.183.
51 VERGIL, Three Books, p.183.
52 CWR, p.275.
45
argument used in the Titulus Regius in 1484, the statute of Parliament that confirmed the
title of king to Richard.

The various accusations made against such powerful women as Cecily of York,
Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret of Anjou reveal the complex anxieties, that were
common in the fifteenth century, about queenly power. There was a fear that a queen
would abuse her proximity to the king and lead the subversion of order like Eve did when
committing the original sin. Such tales of adulterous queens illustrate the permanence and
the intensity of the idea that possessing the rightful queen’s body was a sign of effective
sovereignty over the kingdom53.

C – Mothers, Children and Empowerment

Eventually, by producing heirs, a queen could also expand her own influence.
Indeed, a prince was to have a council and household of his own, and by placing trusty
people in key offices, the queen could control the prince’s estate and increase her
influence. This is what Margaret of Anjou did when her son’s council and household was
created. Edward’s council was composed of “viros” who had to act “with the approval
and agreement of […] the queen54.” The warrants the council issued bore the prince’s
name but were made with the assent of his mother the queen. Helen Maurer highlights
the importance of the formula: the mention of the prince’s name provided a guarantee
and a legitimisation of the acts that were passed, but he did not actually participate to the
discussions since he was only a child. According to Ralph Griffiths, Margaret tried to
establish her personal control over the prince’s lands through the prince’s council55.
Moreover, the birth of her son corresponded to Henry’s moment of insanity. Thus,
Margaret had to take power into her own hands both in the name of her husband and in
the name of her new-born son and heir to the throne. Playing such an active role in politics
did not seem to have presented any problem to Margaret since in her family both her
mother, Isabelle of Lorraine, and her grandmother, Yolande of Aragon had ruled for
absent sons and husbands56. But in England, a feminine regency was not welcomed, and
her contemporaries saw Margaret as a grasping woman. Whether she was or not is not

53 LAYNESMITH Joanna L., “Telling Tale of Adulterous Queens”, op. cit. p.212.
54 MAURER Helen, “Margaret of Anjou and the Loveday of 1458”, in Traditions and Transformations in Late
Medieval England, Douglas L. BIGGS, Sharon D. MICHALOVE, A. Compton REEVES, Brill, Leiden,
2002, p.113.
55 GRIFFITHS Ralph A., Henry VI, quoted by LAYNESMITH Joanna L., “Constructing Queenship at
Coventry”, op. cit., p.139.
56 LEE Patricia-Ann, “Margaret of Anjou and the Dark Side of Queenship”, Renaissance Quarterly, 39, n°2,
1986, p.189.
46
relevant; what is important is that what seemed the only mean for her to ensure the
survival of the dynasty was to take things into her own hands. Elizabeth Woodville too
did wield a particular influence on the Prince of Wales, especially by appointing her
relatives to his governance:

to the governance and ordering of this young prince at his sending thither, was there
appointed Sir Anthony Woodville, Lord Rivers and brother unto the queen […]
adjoined were there unto him other of the same party, and, in effect, every one was
he was nearest of kin unto the queen, so was planted next about the prince57.
Controlling the heir to the throne meant having an important political asset and it
translated into practical power in the reign of Edward IV as well as in the future reign of
Edward V. In view of the important influence the Woodville held over the Prince, since
he was underage, they would have wielded an almost complete power after the death of
Edward IV, if it had not been for Richard’s usurpation of the throne. But such a strong
hold of the prince was envied and according to Charles Ross, Richard’s usurpation could
not have been possible if it had not been for the deep divisions that already existed among
the Yorkist close to the king58. Thomas More explains that the agreement between
Richard of Gloucester and the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Hastings was made
because those two lords did not bear “eche to other so muche loue” but they both hated
“the Quenes parte” and “in this poynte accorded together wyth the Duke of
Gloucester59.”

As mother, a queen also had a particular influence and a role to play in her
children’s education. Through this influence she could exert some power in politics and
especially in marriage negotiations. John Cami Parsons has studied the close links that
existed between mothers and daughters regarding the marriage of the latter60. He argues
that royal daughters were prepared from childhood for their future role as peace bringers.
Even if they did not have claims on the heritage, they offered a diplomatic advantage to
their father the king who could marry them in order to create or strengthen an alliance,
as seen with Elizabeth of York. Queens could influence the choice of groom for their
daughters but could also protect them for an early marriage and childbirth that could
imperil them. The mother thus appeared as a natural mediator between the bride and the
potential groom. A striking example of this is the negotiation of Elizabeth of York’s
marriage with Henry Tudor. In this case, both mothers were acting on behalf of their

57 MORE, Richard III, pp.14-15.

58 ROSS Charles, Richard III, Yale University Press, New Heaven, 1981, pp.39-40.
59 MORE, Richard III, p.15.
60 PARSONS John C., “Mothers, Daughters, Marriage, Power: Some Plantagenet Evidence, 1150-1500”,
in Medieval Queenship, ed. John Cami PARSONS, St Martin’s Press, New York, 1993, pp.63-78.
47
children, in order to secure a strategic alliance that could benefit both parties. This
“Beaufort-Woodville conspiracy” as Ralph Griffiths coined it61 was set up by two
formidable women, Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville, with the support of
Yorkists still loyal to Edward IV’s line, and of Lancastrians, who had sided with Henry
Tudor. Their goal was to depose Richard III and put Henry on the throne, with Elizabeth
of York as his queen – and they succeeded on every point. According to Parsons,
“daughters and their marriages in effect emerge as a practical means by which queens
crossed limits between the unofficial sphere to which popular expectations and royal ritual
directed them, and the magisterial sphere in which their husbands functioned62.” Queens
could claim power through their role in matrimonial diplomacy, and Parsons points out
that through this participation, they derived a sense of self. It was indeed an endeavour
common to medieval noblewomen and they used the tricky strategies of international
marriages to justify their active role in that area, thus gaining a significant amount of
power63.

III – The Queen’s Patronage: A Form of Empowerment

Another mode of self-empowerment for women was through patronage. June Hall
McCash, in the introduction of her book about the cultural patronage of women argued
that patronage was one of the domains in which women could exert a public role that was
approved by society. Because this activity was thus sanctioned, women took full advantage
of it and used it towards many ends: cultural, religious, social and educational but also
political64.

A – Between Earthly and Heavenly Preoccupations: The

Queen’s Religious Patronage:
Women could engage in religious patronage for different reasons that went from
spiritual guidance to a concern for the salvation of their souls and the souls of those they
loved. Such concerns could be displayed through good works and grants that showed her
generosity to the Church. They could also choose to promote one particular institution
or a religious movement. McCash argues that the Virgin Mary was the most popular
figure to whom women dedicated their good works; but it was not the only one. Lives of

61 GRIFFITHS Ralph A., The Making of the Tudor Monarchy, Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1995.
62 PARSONS John C., “Mothers, Daughters, Marriage, Power”, op. cit., p.75.
63 Ibid., p.77.
64 MCCASH June H., The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women, The University of Georgia Press, Athens,
1996, p.1.
48
female saints for example drew a certain attention from women who often sponsored the
production of such writings, as well as male saints’ lives65. A queen’s influence through
patronage could be quite vast: it stretched from her relatives, to the court and as far as
whole dioceses. As she led the trend at court, her particular interests could orientate the
tone of the court that had been set by the king. She could thus reflect the trends of her
time as well as spread such trends. Furthermore, since she could appoint bishops or clerics
in certain places, she could also influence the life of a parish as well as of a diocese66.

Unlike her husband, Margaret of Anjou was not a great founder of charitable
institutions, she rather exerted her influence on the episcopal bench: four members of her
household became bishops. Such a practise was not uncommon, but it usually came from
the king. Margaret advanced qualified clerics who had proven their abilities and talent
while at her service67. Walter Lyhert, the man who had become her confessor on her
marriage, was placed on the episcopal see of Norwich few months after the marriage.
Margaret’s chancellor, William Booth became bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and was
promoted archbishop of York in 1452. He had a brother, Laurence, who took his place
as queen’s chancellor and was then appointed Dean of St Paul’s. Margaret also exerted
her influence on the pope: when the see of Durham became vacant in 1457, Margaret
recommended Laurence Booth to pope Calixtus III who appointed him over the king’s
candidate, his physician, John Arundel68. According to Anne Crawford, Margaret seemed
to have considered these appointments as similar to appointments to lay offices. She
simply was rewarding her most talented clerics, just as she would have done for her secular
administrators. By placing trusty men in powerful religious offices, Margaret also
constituted herself a group of loyal and powerful people that could come to her help or
bolster her party if needed.

For her part, Elizabeth Woodville demonstrated what seemed a genuine concern
for the good of her soul and the souls of those she loved. She took part in many
pilgrimages, particularly to Canterbury: she went in July 1465 with the king, in 1470 with
Princess Elizabeth who was only a child, and in 1471 with the king again69. Furthermore,
she seemed to have attached importance to fraternities: by becoming a member of a

65 Ibid., p.20.
66 CRAWFORD Anne, “The Piety of Late Medieval English Queens”, in The Church in Pre-Reformation
Society: Essays in Honour of F.R.H. Du Boulay, ed. Caroline M. BARRON, Christopher HARPER-BILL, The
Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 1985, p.48.
67 Ibid., p.49.
68 Ibid., pp.49-50.
69 SUTTON Anne F., VISSER-FUCHS Livia, “‘A Most Benevolent Queen’: Queen Elizabeth Woodville’s
Reputation, her Piety and her Books”, in The Ricardian, 10, n°129, 1995, p.233.
49
fraternity, Elizabeth ensured that prayers would be made for the salvation of her soul and
those of her relatives. She became a sister of the Fraternity of the Holy Trinity of Luton,
of the Assumption of the Virgin of the London Skinners, of Christchurch Cathedral in
Canterbury, and maybe of the Fraternity of the Virgin Mary and the Nine Orders of
Angels by Syon. Syon Abbey was the only Bridgettine house in England and had greatly
benefited from Lancastrian patronage. After Edward IV’s accession to the throne, the
Yorkist had taken over the patronage quite intentionally. Edward IV was considered as
the second founder of Syon Abbey because he restored a great part of its property70. In
1480, Edward and Elizabeth’s last daughter was named Bridget, a clear reference to the
saint – she later became a nun in the Dominican priory of Dartford, which was a centre
of mysticism, much like Syon Abbey71. Elizabeth of York’s religious patronage was quite
limited, the main mean through which she expressed her piety was by exercising her
charity. Many guilds received donations from her, such as the fraternity of St George at
Southwark, the Brotherhood of Jesus at Grantham or the Brotherhood of St Ursula in
London. She exerted her charity quite generously, to convents, such as the Minories in
London, to people in need that she encountered, or to give her special thanks to someone
in particular. The friars of St John’s for example received a payment for burying the men
who had been hanged at Wapping; as did the man who had lodged her uncle the Earl
Rivers in Pontefract, just before his death. By these actions, Elizabeth appeared to her
people as a symbol of goodness and charity, and the love they gave her in return shows
how much these virtues were prized72.

Elizabeth Woodville financed religious foundations quite early in her reign. On 12

July 1466, the city of London granted her a piece of land at Tower Hill, so she could build
a chapel or a college – but apart from this mention, we don’t know anything else about
this foundation. That same year, Edward IV granted a licence to William Rous, a
chaplain, and two priests, Thomas Asheby and John Reseby, to found a fraternity in the
Leadenhall Chapel. This grant was made at the request of the queen, and the fraternity
was to be called the “Fraternity of the Holy Trinity and the Sixty Priests of London73.”
By this foundation, the queen showed her concern for the spiritual well-being of her
subjects. In Westminster Abbey, next to the Lady Chapel, she founded a chapel of St
Erasmus (also known as St Elmo), sometime before 1479. There she endowed a chantry

70 Ibid., p.234.
71 CRAWFORD Anne, “The Piety of Late Medieval English Queens”, op. cit., p.54.
72 SUTTON Anne F., VISSER-FUCHS Livia, “‘A Most Benevolent Queen’: Queen Elizabeth Woodville’s
Reputation, her Piety and her Books”, in The Ricardian, 10, n°129, 1995, pp.52-53.
73 PAGE William (ed.), A History of the County of London: Volume 1, London Within the Bars, Westminster and
Southwark, London, Victoria County History, 1909, p.578.
50
of two priests for the royal family. St Erasmus was a patron of sailors but also of women
in labour, so this foundation could have been linked to Elizabeth’s previous delivery of
her son Edward when she was in sanctuary in the Abbey, during the winter of 1471-
147074. Elizabeth was also lady of the manor of Sheen, in which king Henry V had built
a Carthusian monastery, Sheen Priory. In 1479, the new prior of Sheen, John Ingelby,
was granted forty-three acres for Sheen’s manor for life, by the queen. And in 1477,
Elizabeth had obtained a licence to attend the services of all Carthusian houses that had
been sponsored by kings or queens of England75. Her successor’s foundation and
patronage does not appear much in the sources. First because Anne Neville herself does
not appear much and also because of the brevity of her reign. However, she was
recognised by her husband king Richard III as founder and patron of Queens’ College,
Cambridge.

B – The College of the Wars of the Roses: Queens’ College,

Cambridge

The foundation and further patronage of Queens’ College, Cambridge is quite

interesting because it involved three of the four queens that I am studying. It also allows
to understand the political importance of patronage. Just like Edward IV did with Syon
Abbey, taking over foundations that were attached to a particular dynasty or reign was a
way of affirming the power and generosity of the reigning dynasty.

In 1441, Henry VI founded King’s College, Cambridge as part of the renewed

enthusiasm for college foundations, and the first stone of the chapel was laid in September
1444, by the marquis of Suffolk. About four years later, Margaret of Anjou petitioned the
king to allow her to be the first queen to found a college in Cambridge, as a mirror of
Eton or King’s College, Henry’s “mooste noble and glorieus collage roial76.” This college
was to be known as “the Quenes collage of sainte Margarete and saint Bernard, or ellis of
sainte Margarete vergine and martir and saint Bernard confessour77.” Margaret
mentioned that she drew her inspiration from previous noblewomen who were patron of
colleges, such as Elizabeth de Burgh, countess of Clare who refounded Clare’s College,
Cambridge in 1338; and Marie de St Pol, countess of Pembroke who also founded a
college in Cambridge in 1347. As was the case for Clare’s College, Margaret did not found

74 SUTTON Anne F., VISSER-FUCHS Livia, “‘A Most Benevolent Queen’”, op. cit., p.232.
75 Ibid.
76 Quoted by TWIGG John, A History of Queens’ College, Cambridge, 1448-1986, The Boydell Press,
Woodbridge, 1987, p.2.
77 Quoted by Ibid.
51
a college out of nothing. The first foundation charter for a college of St Bernard had been
delivered by Henry VI in December 1446; a second charter issued in August 1447
refounded it on a different site; and in March 1448 Margaret's charter followed. The last
charter was quite similar to the second one. The first foundation charter of 1446 was
granted to Andrew Dokett, the principal of St Bernard’s College, who was the primary
mover behind the foundation of Queens College. In 1448, Margaret, probably at the
instigation of Dokett, petitioned the king to grant her the lands of St Bernard’s College so
that she could found her own college. The new foundation charter that was then issued
endowed the college with the promise of more grants to come; once the pope gave his
approval the works on the buildings could begin. In the foundation charters, the motives
for founding such a college were explicitly given. The college was meant for “the
extirpation of heresies and errors, the augmentation of the faith, the advantage of the
clergy and the stability of the church78.” Its purpose was to train clergymen who could in
turn educate the people, but it was also established “for study and prayer” and especially
prayers for the king and queen’s well-being in their lifetime and for their souls after their
death. But despite the queen’s involvement and despite the creation of a special
committee, the college did not get its statutes during Henry VI’s reign. The most apparent
reason for this would be the political unrest that characterised the second half of his reign.

As early as March 1465, the new queen, Elizabeth Woodville showed her interest
in St Margaret and St Bernard’s College. It is very likely that Elizabeth was, again,
approached by Andrew Dokett who may have wished to win the favours of the new queen
and also to save his college from a potential ruin. Edward IV conferred the college a
licence to possess property of the value of £200 per year. He thereby confirmed the
allowance that had been made in Margaret’s charter but placed his queen as the new
foundress: the college was said to be “de patrona Elizabeth regine Anglie” – and in 1473
she styled herself “vera foundatrix”79. To complete the transfer of the college from a
Lancastrian patronage to a Yorkist one, the college’s seal changed: Margaret’s coat of
arms was replaced by Elizabeth’s and the arms of England. The new queen also gave the
college its statutes: the college was to be composed of twelve fellows and a president.
Thanks to the Yorkist patronage the future of the college was insured – which was
confirmed by the two pardons Edward IV granted it in 1470 and 1473. During the
following reign, the allowance granted to the college more than double thanks to a licence
granted by Richard III in March 1484 which enable it to hold property to the annual

78 Quoted by TWIGG John, A History of Queens’ College, op. cit., p.2.

79 Quoted by Ibid., pp.8-9.
52
value of £499. Four months later, the college received a new important grant of lands in
five different counties. This was also the occasion for the new king to assert his influence
on the college and to minimise the patronage that had been made by the previous queens.
Just as Elizabeth Woodville before her, in the licence of July 1484, Anne Neville was “de
fundatione et patronatu prefate consortis nostre80.” But while Elizabeth had first assumed
the role of patron and then that of foundress, Anne Neville assumed both at once. The
next queen, Elizabeth of York did not show much interest in the college, and the royal
patronage of Queens’ College was taken over by Henry VII’s mother, Margaret Beaufort.

C – Print Patronage: The Political Use of The Printing Press

According to June Hall McCash, one of the major accomplishments of female
patrons in the Middle Ages and which benefitted both women and men, was when they
served as patrons of some of the earliest printers81. The Yorkists and the Woodvilles were
closely linked with England’s first printer, William Caxton. The first book printed in
English is the Recuyell of the Histories of Troy printed in 1464 under the patronage of
Margaret of York, duchess of Burgundy and sister of Edward IV. In 1476, William
Caxton set up his press in the almonry of the Abbey of Westminster. From then on, he
would enjoy the patronage of many members of the royal family. Elizabeth Woodville’s
brother, Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers was among other things, a bibliophile, and he
translated several philosophical French works into English. In order to circulate those
translations, Caxton’s print was the ideal mean. The Dictes or Sayengis of the Philosophers was
printed in 1477; the next year, Caxton printed The Morale Proverbes of Christyne de Pisan, and
in 1479, the Cordial, a translation of Jean Miélot’s Les quattres choses derrenieres. The benefit
was mutual: Rivers could forge himself a reputation of a learned, moral and religious man,
while Caxton enjoyed the patronage of a man particularly close to the king. The queen
herself was also associated with Caxton. Probably around 1477, he printed under her
patronage the History of Jason that he presented to the young Prince of Wales, by the king’s
“licence and congye and by the supportacion of our most redoubted liege lady, most
excellent princesse the Quene82.” Elizabeth of York, for her part, did not get much
involved in print patronage. The only printed book that is associated with her is Caxton’s
Fifteen Oes that was printed in 1491 under the joint patronage of Queen Elizabeth and
Lady Margaret Beaufort. During the reign of Henry VII, such a patronage was rather

80 Quoted by Ibid., p.10.

81 MCCASH June H., The Cultural Patronage, op. cit., pp.32-33.
82 SUTTON Anne F., VISSER-FUCHS Livia, “‘A Most Benevolent Queen’”, op. cit., p.230.
53
exerted by the king’s mother, and not by the queen herself. According to John Walsh, the
patronage of printed book was a patronage of endorsement. By using a prestigious name,
preferably close to the king, the printer legitimated his text and made himself some
publicity. But the link between patron and printer could also be more informal. The
printer may not have known personally the person endorsing his work and the patron
might even not know that he was endorsing a printed book83. At times, the patron could
contribute to the costs and to the production of the book – the Woodvilles, Margaret of
York, Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort probably did – but the development of
the printing press meant the end of the absolute need for financial support:

The business model had changed so a book did not require a patron. Requests
expanded with readership and the book now had multiple sources of demand.
Printers, authors and booksellers started taking the risk of producing books on their
own as readership expanded84.
Just like religious patronage had, among other things, a political goal, being patron
of the early printers could also be politically useful. The print offered to opportunity of a
vast and rapid diffusion of writings. In the context of the Wars of the Roses, and the great
use of rumours and gossips in a propagandist goal, the crown could use this patronage to
circulate its own propaganda. On the other hand, the printer could also get involved
politically to support his patrons. Enjoying the patronage of the royal family may have
caused some loyalty from William Caxton to Edward IV’s family. This is quite striking
when looking at the conditions of the publication of his Golden Legend in 1483. At this time,
Richard III had undertaken a great campaign of defamatory propaganda against Edward
IV and his queen Elizabeth Woodville. In the Legend, Caxton accumulated details to create
a propaganda of his own, in favour of the slandered queen. To do so, he especially
manipulated the biblical figure of Judith: this implicit defence of Elizabeth Woodville has
been studied by Margerita Stocker. She argues that Judith was a model of chastity, and
especially of the chaste widow. Choosing her as a reflection of Elizabeth Woodville was a
particularly strong comparison for a queen who had been accused of bigamy,
concupiscence, and bastard children. This was also a refusal of Richard’s claims to the
throne: if Elizabeth was a virgin, like Judith, then her children were not bastards,
consequently Richard’s claim was not justified. So, this was both a defensive and an
aggressive stance85. Just like Judith had saved her people from the evil conqueror

83 WALSH John, “Literary Patronage in Medieval England, 1350-1550, Library Review, 58, n°6, 2009,
p.455.
84 Ibid., p.457.
85 STOCKER Margerita, “Apocryphal entries: Judith and the Politics of Caxton’s Golden Legend”, in
Women, the Book and the Worldly: Selected Proceedings of the St. Hilda’s Conference, 1993, 2, ed. Lesley SMITH,
Jane H. M. TAYLOR, D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, 1995, pp.171-172.
54
Holofernes, Elizabeth would save England from an unjust rule through her children –
and if her sons were dead, then England’s hopes rested on her eldest daughter. Judith’s
and Elizabeth’s stories could be integrated in the common theme of the tyrant against
god’s power, justice against tyranny. This was even stronger since Anti-Ricardian
propaganda had already used the image of the tyrant: the most striking evidence of it was
the summary execution of Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey in Pontefract in June
148386.

86 Ibid., pp.175-176.
55
56
 THIRD PART

WOMEN, POLITICS AND INTERCESSION

As a queen’s influence in politics and her power was a source of anxiety for her
contemporaries, she was often confined in some defined roles. We have already seen her role as
mother and as patron; now I would like to study her intercessory and peace-seeking activities.

I – The Models of Intercession: Esther and the Virgin Mary

That the queen was limited to the intercessory activity is part of the social traits that were
attributed to women. According to Christine de Pizan, women were soft, gentle and sought peace
and harmony while men were short tempered and more prompt to act out of anger1. A wife
completed her husband as much as a queen completed the king: women had to compensate the
lack of their husbands. A queen was often associated with biblical or religious figures who served
as models for their behaviour. Queen Esther and the Virgin Mary appear as the two main models
within the framework of the queen’s role as a peace bringer. According to Nicolas Offenstadt, these
peace-making and intercessory activities were incorporated within what he called “the power of
the weaks”. In Christian tradition, there was a classical theme that God had chosen depreciated
people to accomplish essential actions. Women’s role in the diplomatic and political game could
be read as such2.

A – The Virgin as Mediatrix: From Heavenly to Earthly Intercession

The London pageants welcoming Margaret of Anjou prior to her coronation in 1445,
presented her as a virgo mediatrix who was to bring peace between France and England, her “good
mediacioun [had] exiled th’angeles of wrecched tirannye3.” She appeared as the mediatrix sent by
God, but also as the city’s mediatrix. And as such she must identify with the citizen’s interest in order
to become their advocate before the king. This explains why many pageants were also the occasion
for the city to offer gifts to the queen. Those presents symbolised a sort of contract between the
queen and the citizens: by accepting the gift, the queen accepted the role the citizens would thrust

1 “les hommes sont par nature plus courageux et plus chaulx, et le grant desir que ilz ont d’eulx vengier ne leur
laisse aviser les perilz ne les maulx qui avenir en peuent. Mais nature de femme est plus paoureuse et aussi de
plus doulce condicion, et pour ce, se elle veult et elle est saige, estre puet le meilleur moyen a pacifier l’omme, qui
soit”., PISAN, Le Livre des Trois Vertus, p.35.
2 OFFENSTADT Nicolas, “Les femmes et la paix à la fin du Moyen Âge : genre, discours, rites”, in Le règlement des
conflits au Moyen Âge, XXXIe Congrès de la S.H.M.E.S. (Angers, June 2000), Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris, 2001,
p.320.
3 KIPLING, Enter the King, p.195.
57
upon her4. According to Gordon Kipling, Margaret's civic triumph constituted a ceremonial and
formal act of mediation: she brought grace to her people by her coming through the city. He
further argues that her advent represented the political truce between France and England, but
also reflected the universal peace on earth5. Helen Maurer argues that during all of these pageants,
Margaret was described only as a mean by which peace would be established, she was construed
as a passive agent of peace-making6. Her active role may not have been clearly expressed in the
pageants, but she still had one: all the hopes of peace rested on the child that she would produce,
who would represent the union of the two countries at war. The pageants of a royal entry often
recalled the Assumption of the Virgin Mary: in such a view, the king was assimilated to Christ who
made space for his queen on the throne, so that he could rule and she could reign7. Indeed, as a
woman, her powers still were limited: she could only influence and persuade.

Sonja Drimmer argues that these pageants “were vital in establishing the identity between
Margaret and Mary as a touchstone of the queen’s public persona8.” She analysed those in
association with a roll of devotions to the Virgin Mary for Margaret of Anjou, now kept in the
Bodleian Library (Jesus College, MS 124). In this roll, the queen is closely associated with the
Virgin Mary as mother but also as intercessor. All of the texts on this roll represented either the
petitions of those who sought the Virgin’s aid, or the praise of those who venerated her9. She argues
that Margaret’s petitionary activities were not covert, as such objects as the roll prove it: her
intercession was probably “a fully-fledged component of the royal political machine10.” The
queen’s position at court was central and her role was not confined to the “private” sphere, as had
often been said. The king’s actions in comparison were said to be “public”, but the difference
between those spheres seemed to have been less clearly defined than our contemporary
understanding of those terms. According to Sonja Drimmer, and as the roll proves it, the Marian
model of beneficence was welcomed into the governmental system, and its public exercise by the
queen was approved11. Elizabeth Woodville too adopted the intercessory role that was expected of
her, at the imitation of the Virgin Mary. In her testament, she gave Mary the title of “oure blessed
Lady Quene of comforte”, and the Marian identification with the queen was almost unavoidable
at that time12. In 141, an anonymous London poet wrote a poem to thank God for Edward IV’s

4 Ibid., p.324.
5 Ibid., pp.327-328.
6 MAURER Helen, “Margaret of Anjou and the Loveday of 1458”, in Traditions and Transformations in Late Medieval
England, Douglas L. BIGGS, Sharon D. MICHALOVE, A. Compton REEVES, Brill, Leiden, 2002, p.110.
7 KIPLING, Enter the King, p.335.
8 DRIMMER Sonja, “Beyond Private Matter: A Prayer Roll for Queen Margaret of Anjou”, Gesta, 53, n°1, mars
2014, p.115.
9 Ibid., pp.112-113.
10 Ibid., p.117.
11 Ibid., p.118.
12 SUTTON Anne F., VISSER-FUCHS Livia, “‘A Most Benevolent Queen’”, op. cit., p.223.
58
return on the throne. In the last three verses he addressed the Queen, asking her to “Helepe every
man to have justice”, and celebrating the end of her troubles: “O quene Elizabeth, O blessid
creature, / O glorius God, what payne had sche?13”.

The use of Marian iconography is even more obvious in pictorial representations of the
queens. Elizabeth Woodville’s representation in the London Skinner’s book (Fig.1) contains
typically Marian attributes: she wears her blond hair loose, held in place with a crown, she is
wearing a blue coat, the colour of the Virgin and she is holding the orb and the sceptre. When
compared to the representation of the Coronation of the Virgin in the same book (Fig. 2), the
resemblance is quite striking: the Virgin also wears a blue coat except that hers is scattered with
golden stars, and her blond hair are loose too. While Elizabeth is in full regalia, the Virgin Mary
is being crowned by the Holy Trinity. In the Rous Roll14 (Fig. 3) as well as in the Salisbury Roll15
(Fig. 4), Anne Neville is also depicted in her regalia with her hair loose. In the Salisbury Roll, she
wears an ermine-furred coat decorated with her ancestral arms, on the right side, and the arms of
England and France on the left side. Her own arms are identical to her father’s and feature the
arms of all of the families they descended from: the Beauchamps, the Montacutes, the
Monthermers, the Nevilles, the De Clares, and the Despensers. Those three pictures portrayed
Elizabeth Woodville and Anne Neville in their coronation robes and in full regalia, while
associating them with the Virgin Mary. Such a depiction is not surprising since, according to
Joanna Laynesmith, the coronation was the ceremony in which the Marian imagery was the most
explicit16. Margaret of Anjou’s representation in the Prayer Roll17 (Fig. 5 & 6) is different but also
refers to the Virgin. She has her hair detached and she is wearing a purple coat over a blue dress.
But unlike Elizabeth and Anne, she is in a praying position, looking up to the rota in the middle of
which the Blessed Virgin is represented holding her son. Here, the accent is put on the Virgin
Mary as Mother of Christ, rather than as Queen of Heaven. According to John Cami Parsons,
interpreting the queen’s role in Marian terms was also a way for her contemporaries to contain the
dangerous implications that a king might be vulnerable to womanly charms18. This way, women
were restricted to stock figures that were commonly renowned for their virtues. The same
mechanism applies when queens were compared to Biblical figures such as Esther or Judith.

13 WRIGHT Thomas (ed.), Political Songs and Poems relating to English History composed during the period from the Accession of
Edward III to that of Richard III, vol. 2, Rolls Series, London, 1861, pp.281-282, quoted by SUTTON Anne F.,
VISSER-FUCHS Livia, “‘A Most Benevolent Queen’”, op. cit., pp.224-225.
14 BL Add MS 48976.
15 BL Add MS 45133.
16 CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins”, op. cit., p.56.
17 Bodleian, Jesus College, MS 124.
18 PARSONS John Cami, “The Queen’s Intercession in Thirteenth-Century England”, in Power of the Weak, ed.
Jennifer CARPENTER, Sally-Beth MACLEAN, University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1995, pp.147-177.
59
 B – Queen Esther: The Submissive Intercessor
In her advices to princesses and queens, Christine de Pizan addresses their intercessory role:
she was to adopt a meek and gentle behaviour so her subjects could feel that they could come to
her and present their grievances. She had to listen to them with attention and then present the
matter to the king19. This last part of her intercessory role is the one that was most often publicly
staged. In his account of the siege of Calais in 1346, Jean Froissart presented the queen, Philippa
of Hainault, heavily pregnant, on her knees, pleading king Edward III to spare the burghers of
Calais. It is also in this part of the intercessory process that Queen Esther is most often referred to.

Queen Esther was, like Margaret of Anjou, a foreign Jewish queen, who was chosen for her
beauty by the Persian king Ahasuerus. When the king’s advisor planned to destroy her people, the
Jewish people, she managed to intercede before her husband the king to save them. To do so, she
fasted for three days and then invited the king and his advisor, Haman, to a banquet. Here, she
revealed Haman’s plot to the king along with her own faith. In the Bible, Esther appears as an
instrument of God’s will, and she is praised for her submissive and gentle behaviour. A queen’s
coronation was a ceremony in which Esther was much present as queens were urged to imitate her
by seeking the well-being of their people20. During this ceremony, queens were also expected to
intercede for royal pardons. John Cami Parsons argues that during the banquet that followed the
ceremony, the queen’s place was also an illustration of her intercessory role: she sat at the king’s
left, on the same side as the virge of justice and equity held by the king. While the right hand was
where the king held the sceptre that symbolised the power to command21. Esther also served as a
powerful emblem for queenship because she embodied the virtue of meek modesty. This virtue of
her contrasts with her two opponents: Haman, the king’s advisor who is behind the plan to kill all
Jews of the kingdom; and Vashti, the king’s previous wife who was repudiated because she was not
obedient. In the 1468 pageants welcoming Margaret of York in the city of Bruges, the scene in
which Ahasuerus chooses Esther was staged, instead of the intercession scene, thus highlighting the
duchess’s source of power: her beauty and her modesty22. In her Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
Mary Ann Hookham relates a fictive speech made by the Bishop of Salisbury where he compares
Margaret’s marriage to Henry VI to Esther’s marriage to Ahasuerus: “Oh! May it be the cause of

19 “Sans longue dilaction parlera a son seigneur bien et sagement, et y appellera des aultres saiges, se mestier est, et
tres humblement suppliera pour le peuple, monstrera les raisons – de quoy elle sera tres bien informee –
comment il est neccessaire que prince, se longuement il veult regner en paix et glorieusement, soit améz de ses
subgiéz et de son peuple (…). Et a brief dire, tant fera et tant pourparlera que elle aura tout ou partie de sa
requeste, et si sagement le raportera aux diz subgiéz que ilz se tendront pour contens du prince et d’elle, et tres
humblement l’en mercieront.”, PISAN Christine de, Le Livre des Trois Vertus, ed. Charity C. WILLARD, Honoré
Champion, Paris, 1989, p.32.
20 KIPLING, Enter the King, p.325.
21 PARSONS John Cami, “The Queen’s Intercession”, op. cit., p.156.
22 Ibid., pp.325-327.
60
peace among the people, even as peace was given unto the Jews on the marriage of Esther23.”

Both models could have several implications: the Virgin Mary could be both the “serving
maid” of Chaucer’s ABC, and the Queen of Heaven; while Esther could be a symbol of the wise
woman as well as the timorous and meek queen24. This models could thus both empower women
and affirm their submissive position towards their husbands, depending on which elements the
comparison was made. Michele Osherow studied how the early modern writers saw the figure of
Esther25. She argues that her words were her most powerful weapon. After saving her people, the
king rewarded her with the opportunity of doing as she pleased: “Wriye ye also for the Jewes as it
liketh you in the kings name” (Esther 8:8). Her words became law: she requested the death of
Haman’s ten sons on the gallows, and two days of vengeance for the Jews, which resulted in the
death of thousands of people. Osherow points out that “It is difficult to reckon the obedient and
silent woman applauded as Esther with the woman who enabled this masculine display of force26.”
This description could easily apply to Margaret of Anjou who was seen by her contemporaries as
a “manly woman” who “[took] upon her the rule and regiment, bothe of the kyng and his
kyngdome, & to depriue & euict out of al rule and aucthorite, thesaid duke, then called the lord
protector of the realme27”: Margaret was a new Esther, fighting the king’s evil advisor, Richard,
duke of York.

II – From the Icon to the Exercise of Power: From Theory to

Practice
Being confined to a peace-seeking role, just like other queens, the queens of the Wars of the
Roses seem to have done their best to fulfil such expectations, but the circumstances sometimes
prompted them to act beyond this restricted role at the expense of their own reputation. Elizabeth
Woodville and Margaret of Anjou’s actions offer many examples of regular queenly intervention
as well as a greater involvement in politics due to the particular circumstances of the Wars of the
Roses. Anne Neville appears rarely in the sources and the few mentions of her don’t hint at a
particular active role she may have played during her brief reign. Elizabeth of York did not seem
to have exerted much political influence at her husband’s court. When she is mentioned in the
sources, she seems seemed to have been everything a king could have wished for in a wife. She is

23 HOOKHAM Mary Ann, The Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England; and her father René ‘the Good’, king of
Sicily, Naples and Jerusalem. With Memoirs of the House of Anjou., Tinsley Brothers, London, 1872, p.270.
24 STROHM Paul, Hochon’s Arrow: The Social imagination of Fourteenth-Century texts, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1992, p.98.
25 OSHEROW Michele, “Crafting queens: early modern readings of Esther”, in Queens and Power in Medieval and Early
Modern England, ed. Carole LEVIN, Robert BUCHOLZ, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 2009, 141-157.
26 Ibid., p.149.
27 HALL, Union, p.208.
61
most often described a gentle and generous consort, who fulfilled her strict duties as queen.

A – The Queen as Mediator and Peace-seeker

When she arrived in England, one of Margaret of Anjou’s first concern was to make sure
that the terms of the treaty with France were indeed carried out. It was here quite a legitimate
concern on her part, since peace depended on the implementation of those terms from both parties.
Margaret was a natural mediator between those two parties, since she belonged to both, so it
seemed appropriate for her to get involved in the question of the surrender of Maine and Anjou.
From the letters we have about this question, it seemed that she had exerted quite strictly her
intercessory role by appealing to the king and advising him, using her wifely influence in order to
maintain the peace: nothing particularly out of place and quite consistent with the two ideals of
the Virgin and Queen Esther that she had to imitate. A first letter from Charles VII to her urged
her to convince Henry VI to surrender the two territories. She responded to this request on the 17
December 1445 by expressing her wishes for peace and promised that

we will upon our part, stretch forth the hand and will employ ourselves herein effectually to
our power in such wise that reason would that you, and all others, ought herein to be
gratified. And as to the deliverance which you desire of the county of Maine, and other
matters contained in your said letters, we understand that my said lord has written to you at
considerable length about this; and yet herein we will do for your pleasure the best that we
can do, as we have always done28.
Saying that she will do whatever she can “in our power” could be either interpreted as a way for
her to moderate the influence that she held over the king. But given Henry VI’s malleability of
character, she must have exercised a considerable influence29 – so the phrase could be just a
formality or a way to show her modesty. In the following letter from Henry to Charles VII, dating
from 22 December 1445, the English king recognised the persistence of Margaret's pleas to him
and thereby admitting her influence over him. Margaret's involvement in this affair must have
seemed quite natural to her, but it was not to make herself loved by her subjects or by the court.
Critics would use this episode to claim that she ruled the king and the court. Beside her efforts in
this case, Margaret of Anjou did not show any more attempt to get involved in the kingdom’s
affairs in the beginning of her reign. According to her letters, she seemed to have taken more
interest in the affairs of her household. She managed to create around herself a group of servants,
friends and allies that were united by interests, marriages and obligations toward her30.

In May 1450, a rebellion broke out in Kent lead by a certain Jack Cade. The rebels were

28 STEVENSON Joseph (ed.), Letters and Papers illustrative of the Wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI,
vol.1, London, 1861, pp.164-167, quoted by KEKEWICH Margaret L., The Good King: René of Anjou and fifteenth-
century Europe, Palgrave MacMillan, New-York, 2008, p.111.
29 LEE Patricia-Ann, “Margaret of Anjou and the Dark Side of Queenship”, op. cit., p.184.
30 Ibid., p.186.
62
angered by the debt caused by the war and claimed the king’s advisors were corrupted and abused
of their power. The Cade rebellion lasted until Jack Cade’s execution in the following July.
Afterwards the king granted pardons to the rebels and those were made by “the most humble and
persistent supplications, prayers and entreaties of our most serene and beloved wife and consort
the queen31.” We don’t know if Margaret really was behind those pardons, but this formula still
exemplified the queen’s intercessory and peace-making role and it also recognised the queen’s
informal power over her husband. This proximity between king and queen and the capacity of the
queen to influence her husband was known and used by the nobles at court. In 1453, Margaret
received a letter from the duchess Cecily of York in her husband behalf, in which she complained
that the duke was estranged from the king’s favour. She requested the queen “to be a tendre and
gracious meane un to [the king] for the favour and the benewillence of his hand to be showid unto
my said lord and husbond32.” In March 1458, a settlement between York’s party and the queen’s
party was found and to show this newly found concord, a “Loveday” was organised on the day of
the Announciation:

And the viith day of March the Kyng and the Quene came to London, at whiche tyme was
made a concorde and an vnye among these forsaid lordes. In tokyn wherof vpon our lady
day newt folowyng, which was the xxvth day of March, the Kyng the Quene and these
forsaid lordes went in procession togider Roially at Seynt Powles33.
During the procession, Margaret and the duke of York, the two leaders of the warring factions
walked hand in hand, as a sign of unity and reconciliation. Margaret’s role in the Loveday cast
her, yet again, as a peace-seeker but it also acknowledged her as the head of the royal party at
court.

When it comes to Elizabeth Woodville, the Crowland continuator rarely mentioned her
but when he did, she did not seem to act out of her place or to intervene in larger politics. At
Edward IV’s death, she played perfectly her role of peace-seeker, and tried to calm the tensions
that arose. The council was trying to settle the question of the guardianship of Edward V and of
his journey from Ludlow, where he was residing, to London, for his coronation: the matter was the
number of men he should bring as his escort. The Crowland chronicler commends Elizabeth who
tried to calm things down by writing to her son:

The queen most beneficently tried to extinguish every spark of murmuring and disturbance,
and wrote to her son, requesting him, on his road to London not to exceed an escort of two

31 Public Record Office, C66/471 m. 13., quoted by MAURER Helen, “Margaret of Anjou and the Loveday”, op.
cit., p.111.
32 RAWCLIFFE Carole, “Richard, Duke of York, the King’s ‘obeisant liegeman’: a New Source for the Protectorates
of 1454 and 1455”, Historical Research, 60, 1987, pp.232-239, quoted by MAURER Helen, “Margaret of Anjou and
the Loveday”, op. cit., p.112.
33 Chronicles of London, p.168.
63
 thousand men34.
This attitude corresponds perfectly to the benevolent queen who wishes for peace and for a smooth
transition of the throne. Two other episodes show Elizabeth Woodville’s ordinary intercession. In
April 1474, she was well received with her son Edward, Prince of Wales, in the city of Coventry.
Few months later, the citizens appealed to her because one of the king’s servants, a certain Reginald
Buckley caused troubled in the town. She told them to imprison him and, in the meantime, she
would appeal personally to the king. There is no more mention of the matter, and it seems that she
kept her word35. Another example of typical queenly intercession is Elizabeth’s intervention on
behalf of the Merchant Adventurers’ Company of London, in 1480. At that time, the tonnage and
poundage they owed to the Crown were long overdue and the Company was ordered to pay
£2,000. They pleaded the Exchequer to defer at least part of the payment of the debt, but when
their attempts failed, they turned to more powerful people and asked for the help of the Marquis
of Dorset, Lord Hastings and the queen herself. An assembly of the Company, held on 8 January,
was informed that “it hath pleased the Queen’s good grace so to labour and pray for us unto the
King’s grace that at the instance of her payer, of the said £2,000 is released 500 marks [£333 6s.
8d.]36.” Another 500 marks was cancelled three days later, and the Company was requested to pay
only one third of the original debt.

B – Beyond the Intercessory Role: Getting Involved in the Kingdom’s

Affairs
Margaret of Anjou’s involvement in politics was gradual and mostly due to Henry VI’s mild
character and his later mental breakdown in 1453. Diana Dunn has stressed the importance of the
shift of Margaret’s active role in politics from this year on37. Thenceforth, she was most often
depicted as an actor of the events rather than as a passive observer as appears in a letter from John
Bocking to John Falstoff dating from 9 February 1456: “The Quene is a grete and stronge labourid
woman, for she spareth noo peyne to sue hire thinges to an entent and conclusion, to hir power38.”
Patricia-Ann Lee argues that after 1453 and the birth of her son, Margaret was pushed further
toward a direct participation in politics. As the king was incapacitated, a regency had to be
organised and Margaret was forced to take the leadership of the royal party. However, the regency
was not granted to her, and was organised around a council and under Richard, duke of York’s
protectorate. According to the chronicler Robert Fabyan, Margaret used her influence to force

34 Croyland, p.485.
35 GREGORY Philippa, BALDWIN David, JONES Michael, The Women of the Cousins' War: The Duchess, the Queen, and the
King's Mother, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2011, p.179.
36 Quoted by Ibid.
37 DUNN Diana, “Margaret of Anjou, Queen Consort of Henry VI: A Reassessment of her Role, 1445-1453” in
Crown, Government and People in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Rowena E. ARCHER, Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1995, pp.79-106.
38 Paston Letters, III, p.162.
64
York to resign his protectorate after Henry VI had recovered his spirits:

she made suche meanys, and wanne by hyr polycy such frendshyp of dyuerse of the lordis,
both spyrytuell and temporall, that she causyd the duke of Yorke to be dyschargyd of his
protectourshyp, and the erle of Salesbury of his chauncellershyp, which was cause of newe
warre, as after shall appere39.
According to him, by her actions the queen did not bring peace anymore but was the cause of war.
The French chronicler Philippe de Commynes reproached Margaret for taking sides between the
duke of Somerset and the earl of Warwick, claiming that if she had kept her role as mediator and
judge, no conflict would have ensued, making her the cause of the Wars:

Ladite dame eut mieux fait beaucoup de faire office de juge, ou de mediateur entre les parties
que de dire : “Je soustienray cette part”, comme il apparut. Car ils en eurent maintes batailles
en Angleterre et en dura la guerre vingt et neuf ans, et fin de compte, le tout y mourut, quasi
d’une part et d’autre40.
The end of York’s second protectorate in February 1456 could be considered as Margaret’s peek
of influence. Even though she was not regent in name, she was in practise. She was probably behind
the council’s and the king’s move from London to Coventry, London being “more fauourable vnto
the duke of Yorkys partye than hyrs41.” After the defeat of the king’s army at the battle of
Northampton in July 1460, and the capture of the king by the Yorkists, the duke of York claimed
the throne for himself. From then on, the queen appeared as the head of the court party. Three
months later, the Act of Accord was passed by Parliament: it stipulated that Henry VI would keep
the crown for the rest of his life, but York and his heirs would succeed him. The act effectively
excluded Henry and Margaret's son Edward of Westminster from the succession. It is
understandable that the queen could no stay passive in such circumstances. As her son had been
deprived of his birth right, she had to intervene, by force if needed. From then on, Margaret was
mentioned in most chronicles as the head of the party – “the quenys party”42 – and the royal
Lancastrian army was said to be the queen’s army. The battle of Wakefield in 1460 was essential
for Margaret because it was the occasion for her army to free king Henry who was taken captive
by the Yorkists at the battle of Northampton five months earlier. She was described by Polydore
Vergil as a conquering queen, who was willing to take up arms and lead her army into the battle
– like a new Joan of Arc:

Likewise the queene, who was resolved in minde to demaunde her husbande by dint of
swoorde, and for that cause had alreadie assembled a puissant armie, when she understoode
that thenemie approached, forthwith she made head against them and gave them the
charge43.

39 FABYAN, New Chronicles, 1811, p.631.

40 COMMYNES Philippe de, Mémoires, ed. Joël BLANCHARD, Librairie générale française, Paris, 2001, pp.488-489.
41 Ibid.
42 Chronicles of London, p.172.
43 VERGIL, Three Books, p.108.
65
She was also the one who went to Scotland and then to France to plead her cause and gain the
financial and military support of the foreign kings. Margaret seems to have been the driving force
in all the Lancastrian enterprises to regain the throne for Henry VI and his son. Eventually, it was
she who led the last Lancastrian attempt to retrieve the throne, alongside the earl of Warwick.
When the earl met her in France in 1470, she seemed to have had a hard time forgiving him for
the troubles she and her family had been through. One account even made him kneel before her
for as long as she wished. This improbable alliance was then sealed by the marriage between
Edward of Westminster and Anne Neville, marriage to which Margaret was quite reticent,
according to a manuscript in the British Library, she waited two weeks before giving her consent:

and so the Queen persevered fifteen days ere she would any thing intend to the said Treaty
of Marriage, the which finally, by the means and conduct of the King of France and the
councilors of the King of Sicily being at Angiers, the said marriage was agreed and
promised44.
On 14 April 1471, the Earl of Warwick was killed in the battle of Barnet, but Margaret still “made
owt furthwith of choyse soldiers no smaule army, and together with her soone Edward, contendyd
with all spede possible to returne into England45.” This final endeavour resulted in a failure and
the death of her son, followed shortly after by the death of her husband, probably murdered in the
Tower of London. All of Margaret of Anjou’s actions were made in the name of her son or of her
husband. Now that they were both dead, even though she was still powerful, she had no one to
fight in the name of and there was no more Lancastrian heir to put on the throne. This meant the
end of her political and diplomatic career46.

Just like Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth Woodville was pushed to act politically because of
the circumstances. In usurping the throne, Richard III had denied her children their birth right to
rule. It is not surprising to find her among the chief movers of a plot to depose Richard and put
her daughter – now that her sons were dead – on the throne. According to Arlene Okerlund, the
fact that Elizabeth Woodville agreed to this proposal could be the best evidence that the two princes
were dead. If they had not been, her hopes would have rather rested on them rather than on her
daughter47. The death of the two Yorkist princes also meant that Henry Tudor was closer to the
throne, something that did not escape Lady Margaret’s political acuity. According to Polydore
Vergil, Margaret Beaufort devised the plan to marry her son with the queen’s daughter and used
her physician, a certain Lewis Caerleon to expose it to queen Elizabeth, still in sanctuary in
Westminster Abbey at that time.

44 CWR, p.232.
45 Ibid., p.147.
46 DUNN Diana, “Margaret of Anjou, Queen Consort of Henry VI”, op.cit., p.103.
47 OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth: England’s Slandered Queen, Tempus Publishing, Stroud, 2006, p.234.
66
 The quene was so well pleasyd with this devyse, that she commandyd Lewys to repare to the
cowntes Margaret, who remaynyd in hir husbands howse at London, and to promyse in hir
name that she wold to hir indevor to procyre all hir husband king Edwards frynds to take
part with Henry hyr soon, so that he might bee sworne to take in maryage Elyzabeth hyr
dowghter, after he shalle have gotten the realme, or els Cycyly, the yownger, yf thother
showld dye before he enjoyed the same48.
Once queen Elizabeth gave her assent, Margaret Beaufort sent one of her men to Brittany to
inform Henry Tudor of the plan, to give him “a good great sum of money”49 and to advise him to
land in Wales, where he had many supporters. At the same time, the duke of Buckingham was also
plotting against Richard III: the break seems to have been the death of the princes in the Tower.
Indeed, Buckingham was still loyal to Edward IV’s family. He may also have been influence by
John Morton, bishop of Ely who had been imprisoned because of his opposition to Richard III: he
then had been placed under the custody of the Duke of Buckingham. Polydore Vergil describes
the Buckingham rebellion and the Beaufort-Woodville conspiracy as two distinct elements.
However, the goal and the means were the same in both plots: to overthrow Richard and put
Henry Tudor on the throne by right of battle and to unite the houses of York and Lancaster
through his marriage with Elizabeth of York. It is far more likely that Margaret Beaufort, Elizabeth
Woodville and Buckingham worked together to achieve their end. Buckingham’s role was to stir
up some revolts in the south in order to divert Richard III’s armies and to allow Henry Tudor’s
landing. Richard III eventually discovered Buckingham’s treason and he was executed on 2
November 1483. On 25 December, in Rennes’ cathedral, Henry Tudor swore to marry Elizabeth
of York – or her sister Cecily if Elizabeth died in the meantime – once he would be king and he
began to build up an army for an invasion of England.

But in the following year, Queen Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters left sanctuary and
join Richard III’s court. Polydore Vergil ascribed this reversal of Elizabeth Woodville to women’s
mutability and he presents her as a traitor to her word, a weak woman who yielded easily to
Richard’s rhetoric: “forgetting injuryes, forgetting hir faith and promyse geaven to Margaret,
Henryes mother, she first delyvered hir dowghters into the handes of king Richerd50.” According
to Vergil, the other proof that Elizabeth Woodville had now sided with King Richard is that she
wrote to her son, the marquess of Dorset, to come back to Richard’s court where he would be
pardoned. Dorset had joined Buckingham’s rebellion and when it had failed, he had crossed to
Brittany to join Henry Tudor. We don’t know Elizabeth’s motives, and it is possible that she wrote
under pressure from Richard. Arlene Okerlund argues that Dorset had already begun to despair
of Henry Tudor’s chances, and combined with his mother’s letter, this is why is secretly left Paris

48 VERGIL, Three Books, p.196.

49 Ibid., p.197.
50 Ibid., p.210.
67
for Flanders, then planning to reach England. But his plans were discovered, and Richmond sent
one of his men to stop Dorset and persuade him to stay in France, successfully51. Through Richard
III’s reign Elizabeth Woodville did not appear anymore as the benevolent queen who sought to
appease the tensions just after Edward IV’s death. Polydore Vergil cast her as a weak-minded
woman who did not resist enough King Richard. But considering her role before she joined
Richard’s court and after, it seems that she was rather trying to navigate the perilous politics of the
time and trying to ally herself with the most profitable party. Before Buckingham’s arrest and
execution this was the party of Henry Tudor, whose interests were represented by his strong-willed
mother. But after the failure of the rebellion, Henry Tudor’s chances must have seemed less
convincing. Therefore, the most profitable and probably the safest thing to do was to join Richard’s
court. We don’t know how far Elizabeth was convinced of Richard’s good intentions towards her
and her daughters. As far as we know, she could have wished for genuine amity, but she could also
have pretended to side with him, while waiting for Henry Tudor to make his move. Richard’s
intentions too are not clear, but it sure was a great asset for him to have Edward IV’s wife and
daughters at his court, as they could serve as great diplomatic assets.

Anne Neville’s few appearances in the sources do not give much information about her
involvement in politics or if she exercised her role of intercessor. Once she becomes queen, she is
referred to when mentioning her joint coronation with Richard III, the birth and later death of
their son, Edward of Middleham, and her own death in 1485. Her successor, Elizabeth of York,
does not either appear much in the sources. She seemed to have exerted her strict duties as queen
and not to have overstepped the barriers of her role. However, a ballad inspired by the Battle of
Bosworth in 1485 portrays her as actively striving to help Henry Tudor overthrow Richard III.
The Song of the Lady Bessy was possibly written by Humphrey Brereton, a squire from Cheshire who
is prominent in the story. The earliest extant text of this ballad date from around 1600, but it was
probably written during the reign of Henry VII52. The poem begins with Elizabeth begging Lord
Thomas Stanley for his help in refusing Richard III’s proposition of marriage to her, and asking
him to raise an army in her name against the king:

All is at your commandment down in the west

Both Knigth and Squire and Commentie;
[…] I have enough both of gold and fee;
I want nothing by the strength of men,
And good captains two or three53.

51 OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth: England’s Slandered Queen, op. cit., p.242.
52 “The Song of Lady Bessy”, in WAGNER John A., Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses, ABC-CLIO, s.l., 2001, p.254.
53 HEYWOOD Thomas (ed.), The Most Pleasant Song of Lady Bessy: and how she married King Henry the Seventh, of the House of
Lancaster, Richard Taylor, London, 1829, p.5.
68
Stanley is eventually moved by her despair and her many words convince him to act against
Richard. The plan is to send letters to many noblemen to ask them to raise armies, and to meet
with Stanley in order to organise a plot against Richard III. A letter is also to be sent to Henry,
Earl of Richmond, who is still in France, informing him that Stanley and Elizabeth are on his side,
and urging him to land in England, defeat Richard and marry Elizabeth. Elizabeth proposes to
write the letters herself, showing off her ability to write and read in English, in French and in
Spanish. Letters are written to Stanley’s sons Lord Strange and Edward Stanley; to his brother,
William Stanley; to Stanley’s nephew, the Knight John Savage; and to the Squire Gilbert Talbot.
All of those noblemen are relatives to the Stanleys or former servants of Edward IV. To deliver
those letters, Elizabeth comes to the alleged author of the ballad: Humphrey Brereton. On 3 March
1483, all of the conspirators meet in London to pledge their allegiance to Elizabeth of York and to
Henry Tudor. They promise to send Henry money to help him gain the throne, and they swear to
Elizabeth that she will be Queen, with a sentence that is repeated like a chorus: “In England thou
shalt be our Queen, / Or doubtlesse I will dye54.” When Brereton delivers the letter and the money
to Henry Tudor, he says he has come “King of England for to make thee”, and immediately follows
Elizabeth’s mention as “a Countesse, a King’s daughter” who “can write and […] can read”55.
Then follows the descriptions of Henry Tudor’s landing in England and the battle of Bosworth
where Richard III is killed. The ending illustrates perfectly the Tudor efforts to present Elizabeth
and Henry’s marriage as marking the end of the Wars of the Roses:

When the Red Ross so fair of hew

And young Bessy together mett,
It was great joy I say to you […]
The two bloods [were] made all one56.

The main difference with other sources narrating Richard’s overthrow, is that usually, Elizabeth
of York was depicted as a passive pawn in the wider political game, being passed from one potential
husband to the other. Here, she appeared as the driving force behind the plot, controlling her
destiny and striving to evict Richard, her brothers’ murderer, from the throne, and to take her
rightful place. Such a presentation of Elizabeth of York is quite surprising, all the more so if it was
written during Henry VII’s reign. Given Elizabeth’s superior claim to the throne, Henry Tudor
toned down her rights to the throne by exalting his own right granted by right of conquest.
According to Jacqueline Johnson, Henry is presented in the ballad as a mere mercenary, acting for
money and a “faire ladye”. The final union of Henry and Elizabeth tarnishes Henry’s reputation

54 Ibid., p.30.
55 Ibid., p.34.
56 Ibid., pp.47-48.
69
and replaces it “with an image based on Elizabeth’s rights as heir, Elizabeth and Henry are jointly
recognized as monarchs, crowned together57.”

C – Slandered Queens: Gender and Deligitimisation

Because those queens acted beyond the strict limits of their womanly power, they were the
targets of many slanders whose goal was to delegitimise their actions and thereby all of the
undertakings of the party they represented. These slanders revolve around three main themes:
adultery, witchcraft and the perversion of genders. The adultery accusations have been studied in
the previous part so I will now focus on the two other themes. These topics fit in the broader
question of gender and the fear that arose if the socially acceptable norms of both genders were
not respected. Witches were representatives of the power that women held over men, something
that was quite a source of troubles at that time. Witchcraft could thus be considered as the deviance
that arose from extreme womanliness. On the other hand, “manly woman58” went against every
criterion that defined genders in the Middle Ages, and in a way, could represent the deviances
arising from the opposite extreme: women who acted more like men than women.

1. “Manly Women”

Queens were not expected to be movers of political actions, but considering Henry VI’s
loose hold of the reins of the kingdom, Margaret quickly became involved in politics. She was
presented by many chroniclers as the head of the Lancastrian party. When they described the
Lancastrian efforts, the negotiations with foreign kings or the military actions Queen Margaret was
the subject of the sentence, and, at times, seems to be the only mover. The Crowland continuator
writes about “the queen’s army” increasing numbers in view of the battle of Tewkesbury59. The
chronicler Robert Fabyan places Queen Margaret at the head of a group composed prince
Edward, the dukes of Somerset and Exeter, “and dyuerse other lordys”, all of these people formed
“the quenys partye”60. An anonymous Old English chronicle called Hearne’s Fragment evokes the
second battle of St Albans in 1461 and mentions that it was “won by the Queen Margaret and her
“complices’”61. Even French chroniclers such as Georges Chastellain or Jehan de Wavrin give
Margaret the main role: it was “une armée de gens de la royne” that the Earl of Warwick and his
brothers met on their way to Calais in 145962. And it was only after long negotiations and a public
apology from the Earl of Warwick that Margaret agreed to the marriage between her son and

57 JOHNSON Jacqueline, “Elizabeth of York: Mother of the Tudor Dynasty”, in The Rituals and Rhetoric of Queenship,
Medieval to Early Modern, ed. Liz. OAKLEY-BROWN, Louise J. WILKINSON, Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2009, p.57.
58 HALL, Union, p.208.
59 Croyland, p.465.
60 FABYAN, New Chronicles, 1811, pp.637-638.
61 CWR, p.6.
62 WAVRIN Jehan de, Anchiennes Cronicques d’Engleterre, II, Société de l’Histoire de France, Paris, 1859, p.185.
70
Anne Neville. Georges Chastellain even makes Warwick kneel before the queen during fifteen
minutes before she forgives him, in a public show of domination63. If true, it must have been
especially satisfying for Margaret to see one of her great rival in such a submissive position, while
the Earl of Warwick must have felt quite humiliated. In this account, as in many others, Margaret’s
attitude is almost kingly. According to the social rules attached to each gender, men were those
making the decisions, leading armies into battle or negotiating alliances. Given the circumstances
– and also probably given her own character – Margaret found herself doing exactly these
activities. Pope Pius II, in his Commentaries, describes her as “inaxorable” and even depicts her giving
an oration to her French allies, assuring them that they have nothing to fear from the Edward’s
men, in 1463. The pope draws a clear parallel between Margaret and Joan of Arc, attributing the
following words to the queen:

I will fight at the forefront. I will be the first to receive their weapons. I will be the first to
charge their advancing columns – and without fear [...] You who once followed a peasant
girl, follow now a queen64.
Pius presents here an ambiguously gendered description of Margaret. Instead of pleading the
French captains to help her, as a woman should have done, she tries to command and inspire just
like a male leader would. The reaction of the French army repeats the comparison with Joan of
Arc and introduces plainly the gender paradox that Margaret represented in the eyes of the pope:

All marveled at such boldness in a woman, at a man's courage in a woman's breast, and at
her reasonable arguments. They said that the spirit of the Maid, who had raised Charles to
the throne, was renewed in the Queen65.
Pius chose to explain Margaret’s masculine behaviour by using the comparison with Joan of Arc.
Because a woman leading an army was exceptional and disrupted the order of things, if two women
were doing so in such a short time interval, then they must have been connected to one another.
Maybe even more than her rhetoric, the fact that she was a woman and that she showed such
boldness was enough to convince her audience, for “it seemed disgraceful for men to be less daring
than a woman66.” Despite being abnormal, Margaret’s reversal of genders does not appear
particularly negative in this account.

Such depictions of Margaret are also found in Tudor chronicles, mainly Polydore Vergil’s

63 “[Warwick] vint là où estoit la reine Marguerite, et là se rua à genoux devant cy, disant tous les mots ci-dessus
touchiés, et lui priant humblement merci et pardon; laquelle durement parlant à ly le souffrit à genoux un quart
de heure, et enfin lui pardonna sur les conditions devisées”, CHASTELAIN Georges, Chronique des ducs de Bourgogne,
II, ed. Jean-Alexandre BUCHON, Verdière, Librairie, Paris, 1827, p.243.
64 PIUS II, The Commentaries of Pius II, Book IX, trans. Florence A. GRAGG, Smith College Studies in History,
Northampton, 1951, quoted by MUDAN FINN Kavita, The Last Plantagenet Consorts. Gender, Genre and Historiography,
1440-1627, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2012, p.34.
65 Ibid., quoted by LEE Patricia-Ann, “Margaret of Anjou and the Dark Side of Queenship”, op. cit., p.199.
66 Ibid., quoted by HEAD Constance “Pope Pius II and the Wars of the Roses”, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, vol. 8,
1970, p.176.
71
and Edward Hall’s. When presenting Margaret for the first time, as a young bride, Vergil described
quite commonly her beauty and her wisdom, but he also added that she was “endeued with an
hault courage above the nature of her sexe”. That is the first indication of Margaret’s masculine
qualities that Vergil continues to hint at. After relating the marriage between Margaret of Anjou
and Henry VI, Vergil pauses his narrative to make a lengthy description of both king and queen.
King Henry is described as “a man of milde an plaine-dealing disposition, who preferred peace
before warres”, he is said to be patient, bashful, modest and innocent67 and the chronicler seems
to admire his religious devotion. On the other hand, Margaret is “full of policie, councell, comely
behaviour”, and she shows “great witt, great diligence, great heede, and carefulness68”. In this
depiction of the royal couple, there is a swapping of genders: while Margaret has “all manly
qualities”69, Henry’s patience, modesty and purity were qualities that were most commonly
associated with women than with men. While she is hesitating between going to battle and
retreating, after the defeat of the Earl of Warwick at Barnet in 1471, Margaret takes military advice
from the noblemen of her entourage, – notably the duke of Somerset – just like a king would do.
But when approaching the final battle of Tewkesbury, Vergil describes her more and more as a
worried mother, highlighting her concern for her son’s life. His narrative becomes teleological,
progressing toward Edward of Westminster’s effective death during the battle of Tewkesbury, after
which Margaret lived “in perpetuall moorning […] for the losse of hir soone Edward70.” Margaret
appeared in Vergil’s narrative as a woman endowed with manly qualities, those same qualities that
made her the driving force of the Lancastrian party, sometimes almost in a king-like position.
According to Kavita Mudan Finn, Vergil’s suppression of Margaret’s more feminine
characteristics, and particularly the accusations of adultery levelled against her, in the beginning
of his narrative, may reflect his reluctance – and that of his patron’s – to portray Henry VI
negatively by association71. Eventually, Margaret left the narrative as a grieving mother, the perfect
picture of the mater dolorosa, the norms of genders being restored.

Edward Hall’s depiction of Margaret of Anjou is much similar to Vergil’s, but he goes even
further and stresses her masculine qualities in their own and to the Queen’s disadvantage72. Hall
makes the same depiction of the royal couple as Virgil. But while Vergil’s Henry VI’s was admired
almost as a saint, Hall highlights his passivity in governing – “he was gouerned of them whom he
should haue ruled, and brideled of suche, whom he sharpely should haue spurred” – which gave
Margaret free reign “to take vpon her the rule and regiment, bothe of the kyng and his

67 VERGIL, Three Books, p.70.

68 Ibid., p.71.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid., p.152.
71 MUDAN FINN Kavita, The Last Plantagenet Consorts, op. cit., p.88.
72 LEE Patricia-Ann, “Margaret of Anjou and the Dark Side of Queenship”, op. cit., p.209.
72
kyngdome73.” Since Margaret was assuming a role that was not made for her, destruction and
danger must arise. When Margaret’s army made of Northmen approached London, rumours of
barbaric violence and pillaging reached the capital. Those tales were useful to the Yorkist who
used them to turn the populations against Margaret:

Whan tydynges were brought vnto the cytie of the commynge of the quene with so great an
hoost of Northernmen, anon such as were of the contrary partye, brought vp a noyse
thorought the cytie, that she brought those Northernmen to the entent to ryffle and spoyle
the cytie, where thoroughe she was encreacyd of enemyes74.
Helen Maurer argues that female leadership meant the reversal of right order. Moreover, a
transgressive woman was believed to be characterised by bitterness and anger. This gendered bias
was doubled by a regional bias: northerners were seen as barbarians by southerners. Those two
elements combined together created “a very potent mixture” of delegitimising propaganda75. Men
were supposed to take decision on their own, or with the advice of other men; there could be no
shared power. According to Patria-Ann Lee, Tudor chroniclers were particularly hostile towards
Margaret, what she represented and her behaviour as a woman. Their depiction of Margaret of
Anjou illustrated the fear that women might break free from their role of subordinate, determined
by nature and by theology.

Theory and practice assumed that men were dominant in all social as well as political
relationships. Any alteration of this order of things caused deep concern in the observer and
usually, anger toward the non-conforming female76.
So, when women did exert a modicum of power or assumed more power than they were allowed
to by the socially acceptable norms, they were considered as deviant or abnormal, hence the
oxymoron that were used to describe them. If women’s power could not be explained rationally,
in terms of genders – a domain that Margaret’s contemporaries could still try to understand –
chroniclers then turned toward the supernatural: witchcraft and magic.

2. Witchcraft and the Woodvilles

While Margaret of Anjou was accused of not being womanly enough according to the
socially acceptable norms associated with genders, Elizabeth’s Woodville was attacked on the
dangers that her womanliness could represent. The accusation of sorcery and witchcraft were
levelled at the Woodville women: Queen Elizabeth and her mother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg.
The first occurrence of such allegations was during the split between the Earl of Warwick and
Edward IV. In July 1469, the earl took Edward prisoner and executed the king’s trusted men that

73 HALL, Union, p.208.

74 FABYAN, New Chronicles, p.638.
75 MAURER Helen, “Deligitimizing Lancaster”, op. cit., p.183.
76 LEE Patricia-Ann, “Margaret of Anjou and the Dark Side of Queenship”, op. cit., p.210.
73
he considered as the adverse party: that included the queen’s father, Richard Woodville Earl
Rivers, and her brother Sir John Woodville, who were executed on 12 August at Kenilworth. In
the following weeks, the queen’s mother was accused of witchcraft by a certain Thomas Wake,
squire. He had presented lead image of a man-of-arms, broken in two and fastened with a wire
and he claimed that it had been used against the person it represented: the name was not
mentioned in the petition but according to Warkworth, it was the Earl of Warwick. Wake also
claimed that John Daunger, a parish clerk of Stoke Brewer in Northampton had in his possession
other images representing Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville77. This accusation is contained in
the records of the great council held on 10 February 1470, after Edward’s return from Warwick’s
capture. This council took the testimonies from Wake and Daunger who both denied having
serious evidence against Jacquetta, each one accusing the other, and the countess was “cleared of
the said slander78”. This accusation was clearly designed to destabilise the opposing party and
targeting the queen’s mother was an indirect way of targeting the queen herself.

Such allegations of witchcraft resurfaced after Edward IV’s death, as part of Richard III’s
arguments to take over the throne. In the petition of 23 January 1484 that Richard made to the
parliament to validate his claim to the throne, the first argument against the marriage of Edward
IV and Elizabeth Woodville was that it was due to magic:

And here also we consider, how that the said pretended marriage betwixt the abovenamed
King Edward, and Elizabeth Grey, was made […] by Sorcery and Witchcraft committed by
the said Elizabeth, and her mother Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, as the common opinion
of the people, and of the public voice and fame is throughout all this land79.
The last part of the quote probably referred to the previous accusation made against Jacquetta of
Luxembourg. The chronicler Robert Fabyan also mentioned the duchess of Bedford’s possible use
of magic when evoking that same marriage: “What oblyquy ran after of this maryage, howe the
kynge was enchaunted by the duchesse of Bedforde80”. According to John Leland, there did not
seem to be legal ground for Richard’s claim at the invalidity of Edward’s marriage based on
magical influence from the bride and her mother. Canon law detailed at lengths the cases of
marriage invalidated by impotence that had magical origin, but it did not deal with the validity of
the marriage when one party was enchanted by the other81. Blaming the marriage on enchantment

77 “The duchess complaints that Thomas Wake, esquire, in the time of the late trouble caused her to be brought in
a common noise and slander of witchcraft throughout a great part of the realm, insomuch as he cause to be
brought to Warwick to divers of the lords present when the king was last there an image of lead made like a man
of arms of the length of a man’s finger broken in the middle and made fast with a wire, saying that it was made
by her to use with witchcraft and sorcery, and for the performing of his malicious intent entreated one John
Daunger, parish clerk of Stowe Brewerne, co. Northampton, to say that there were two other images made by
her, one for the king and one for the queen.”, CPR 1467-1477, p.190.
78 Ibid.
79 CWR, p.274.
80 FABYAN, New Chronicles, p.654.
81 LELAND John, “Witchcraft and the Woodvilles: A Standard Medieval Smear?”, in Reputation and Representation in
74
and magic could be a way to steer the blame away from Edward. Regarding his choice of bride
and the circumstances of his marriage, he had been previously presented by many chroniclers as a
young man who was controlled by his passion. But considering Richard’s further condemnation of
Edward’s actions – his previous marriage and the fact that he thus lived in bigamy – it does not
seem that he truly wanted to spare his brother’s memory. The Parliament and the Lords for their
part, were probably more attached to the late king’s memory. By blaming witchcraft supposedly
performed by Elizabeth and her mother, Richard could thus target directly the unpopular queen,
which would probably have been more tolerated by the Lords and the Parliament, than outright
accusation against Edward IV. Furthermore, it was commonly easier to blame the women than
the men. Those accusations also hinted towards the influence a woman could hold over her
husband. This aspect of women’s power was a source of anxiety for Elizabeth’s contemporaries:
no one had any control over what happened in the private conversations between a king and his
queen, and these conversations could influence the politics and the future of the kingdom. This
was too much power in the hands of a woman. Presenting it as a result of magic and enchantment
was a way to explain it. This way, all the troubles the kingdom had suffered could be credited to
some magic and devilish influence that the queen exerted over the king. If Edward had been
manipulated since the day of his marriage, then people could wonder what else was the doing of
the queen.

Richard III made a second accusation of sorcery against Elizabeth Woodville, but this time
directed toward himself and not toward King Edward. This charge is only mentioned by two
Tudor chroniclers: Polydore Vergil and Thomas More. Polydore Vergil gives Richard a speech to
his Parliament, where he described the physical effects that Elizabeth Woodville’s spells supposedly
had on his body:

My lords, I have procuryd you all to be caulyd hyther this day for that onely cause that I
might shew unto you in what great danger of death I stand; for by the space of a few days by
past nether nyght nor day can I rest, drynk, nor eat, wherfor my blood by lyttle and lyttle
decreaseth, my force fayleth, my breath shorteneth, and all the partes of my body do above
measure, as you se (and with that he shewyd them his arme), faule away; which mischief
veryly procedeth in me from that sorceres Elyzabeth the quene, who with hir witchcraft hath
to enchantyd me that by thanoyance thereof I am dissolvyd82.
This is quite a theatrical account of the accusation of necromancy against Elizabeth Woodville.
Necromancy at that time referred to all magic that had to do with death: Elizabeth was accused of
precipitating Richard’s death with her spells and charms. It is also the first mention of Richard
III’s shrivelled arm, a deformity that would be used by Shakespeare so his physical appearance

Fifteenth-century Europe, ed. Douglas L. BIGGS, Sharon D. MICHALOVE, A. Compton REEVES, Brill, Leiden, 2004,
p.275.
82 VERGIL, Three Books, p.180.
75
could reflect his evilness. Thomas More’s account gives some more details and a critical comment
on the charges levelled against the queen. After accusing “yonder sorceres my brothers wife &
other with her”83 of imagining his destruction, More’s Richard III continues and details the
charges:

ye shal al se in what wise that sorceres and that other witch of her counsel shoris wife wt their
affynite, haue by their sorcery & witchcraft wasted by body. And therwt he plucked vp hys
doublet sleue to his elbow vpon his left arme, where he shewed a werish withered arme and
small, as it was neuer other84.
Thomas More’s account is just as dramatic as Vergil’s but the effect is toned down by the authors
comments. Indeed, according to More, Richard’s shrivelled arms could not be an effect of
Elizabeth Woodville’s spells since it had always been this way: “And also no man was there present,
but wel knew that his harme was euer such since his birth85.” Furthermore, More points out that
the Lords immediately understood that this was not something to take seriously, since the queen
was too wise to undertake such a thing, and that even if she had done it, she would have never let
Jane Shore into the secret for she was her husband’s mistress, and thus her rival.

And thereupon euery mannes mind sore misgaue them, well perceiuing that this matter was
but a quarel. For wel thei wist, that the quene was to wise to go aboute any such folye. And
also if she would, yet wold she of all folke leste make Shoris wife of counsaile, whom of al
women she most hated, as that concubine whom the king her husband had most loued86.
If that was not to be taken seriously, then why was Richard levelling such accusations at Elizabeth
and her mother? John Leland argues that it is worth considering the possibility that Richard
believed or even had reasons to believe his accusations87. The most likely explanation would be
that Elizabeth Woodville and her mother may have developed an interest in astrology. At that
time, it was an art frequently practiced but it still had an “aura of the forbidden”, especially when
it was not only used to predict the future, but also to influence it. According to him, Richard’s
allegations of witchcraft and the nefarious use of astrology and magic was what Rosemary Horrox
called a “standard medieval smear”88 because these were credible charges at that time89.

83 MORE, Richard III, p.47.

84 Ibid., p.48.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
87 LELAND John, “Witchcraft and the Woodvilles”, op. cit., p.270.
88 HORROX Rosemary, Richard III: A Study of Service, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989, p.113.
89 LELAND John, “Witchcraft and the Woodvilles”, op. cit., p.287.
76
 FOURTH PART

QUEEN DOWAGER, MOTHER OF THE KING

I – The Queen Dowager

What happened to a queen once the king was dead? “Quant revestue sera de ce qui lui
apertient et du douaire assigné, elle yra demourer sur sa terre, et la avisera comment elle se
gouvernera bien et sagement selon sa revenue”1. According to Christine de Pizan, once she was a
widow, a princess or a queen had to retire to her estates and manage her household. On the four
queens of the Wars of the Roses, only Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville survived their
husbands. While Margaret of Anjou’s later years were marked by the loss of her son and of her
French inheritance, Elizabeth Woodville kept a political role in her widowhood, mostly during the
reign of Richard III. Once Henry Tudor acceded to the throne, and her daughter, Elizabeth of
York became queen, the queen dowager distanced herself from the politics.

A – Margaret of Anjou and the “Reverses of Fortune”2

After the battle of Tewkesbury, the Lancastrian hopes were ended. Prince Edward had been killed,
and few days later, Margaret was found in a religious house where she had found sanctuary. She
was then taken prisoner by Edward IV and paraded through London as a victory trophy:

Queen Margaret also was taken prisoner and preserved in safety, in order that she might be
carried to London, there to appear before the king’s triumphal car; which was accordingly
done3.
Now that he was the indisputable victor and thereby the lawful king of England, Edward entered
his city with great pomp, echoing the Roman triumphs. Such a procession was meant to celebrate
his victory, but also to display what was left of the Lancastrian dynasty, namely the queen. The
symbol was even more powerful since Margaret had been the real driving force of the Lancastrian
party. Now that her son was dead and that her husband was held by the Yorkists in the Tower of
London, she had no one to fight in the name of. According to Helen Maurer, the possession of
Henry VI by the Yorkists also meant the end of Margaret’s de facto independence as a political
actor: “As the king’s wife, without any claim of her own to political authority, her political fate was

1 PISAN, Le Livre des Trois Vertus, p.86.

2 Letter of René of Anjou to his daughter Margaret, in 1470, “Ma fille, que Dieu vous assiste dans vos conseils, car
c’est rarement des hommes qu’il faut en attendre dans les revers de la fortune.”, VILLENEUVE-BARGEMONT
Christophe, Précis historique sur la vie de René d'Anjou, Roi de Naples, Comte de Provence, G. Mouret, Aix-en-Provence,
1820, p.38.
3 Croyland, p.466.
77
bound to his. When the king fell, the queen, his wife, fell with him4.” King Henry VI died in the
night of 21 May 1471, the day that Edward IV ad entered London. Margaret was imprisoned in
Wallingford Castle and then transferred into the Tower of London. In 1472, she was placed in the
custody of Alice Chaucer, duchess of Suffolk, her former lady-in-waiting. The duchess’ husband
had been behind the negotiations of Margaret’s marriage and the duchess herself had accompanied
her to England in 1445 so it is possible that the two women had struck a friendship. In 1475, among
the terms of the Treaty of Picquiny, Louis XI of France ransomed Margaret for £50,000. In fact,
it was her father, René of Anjou who wanted to retrieve her from England, but since he didn’t
have enough money, he appealed to the French king. In exchange, Margaret had to renounce all
of her English claims. Furthermore, Louis XI required her to sign over all of her rights of
inheritance to her parent’s lands.

Quene Margaret lyke a prisoner was brought to London, where she remayned tyll kyng
Reiner her father raunsomed her with money, which summe […] he borowed of kyng Lewes
the xi and because he was not of power nor abilitie to repaye so greate a dutie, he solde to
the Frenche king & his heyres, the kyngdomes of Naples, and bothe the Sciciles5.
Deprived of her inheritance, Margaret of Anjou could not follow Christine de Pizan’s advice to
take care of herself and her lands “sagement selon sa revenue”, since she had no estate of her own
to manage. She first joined her father in Provence, where she stayed until his death in 1480. Then,
she became the host of one of her father’s squire, François de Vignolles, in his castle of Dampierre,
near Saumur. She died there on 25 August 1482 at the age of fifty-two. The French chronicler
Philippes de Commynes thus mentions Margaret’s last years:
Ladite Marguerite, vesve du roy d’Angleterre, privée de tous ses enfans vint en Anjou finir
ses jours et trespassa en la paroisse de Dampierre, près Saulmur, chez ung gentil homme
nomme Françoys de La Vignolle, seigneur de Morains, qui autrefois avait esté serviteur du
bon roy René de Sicille, père d’icelle royne6.
While Margaret exerted much power, she always did so in the name of her husband or her son.
We don’t know how much her actions were indeed backed by her male relatives, but her son was
only seventeen when he died, and in the vast majority of chronicles on the period, Henry VI rarely
appears as an active player. Margaret must indeed have been the effective head of the Lancastrian
party. Once her husband and her son died, Margaret almost disappeared from the sources. She
makes brief appearances in French chronicles that mention her return to France and her death,
but she had no more relevance in the English chroniclers’ narratives.

4 MAURER Helen, Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England, Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2005,
p.202.
5 HALL, Union, p.301.
6 BOURDIGNIE Jehan de, Chroniques d’Anjou et du Maine, vol 1, ed. Théodore comte de QUATREBARBES, Cosnier et
Lachèse, Angers, 1842, p.17.
78
 B – Elizabeth Woodville’s Widowhood: The Fall and Rise of Edward
IV’s line
Right after her husband’s death, Elizabeth Woodville might have expected to play an
important role in the government of the kingdom. Edward IV’s heir, Edward, Prince of Wales was
only twelve years old and a regency had to be organised. Given the fact that the lords were not
inclined to give Margaret of Anjou the regency during Henry VI’s mental breakdowns, Elizabeth
Woodville might have expected the same reluctance to a regency of her own. However, the
Woodvilles’ influence on the young king was not only exerted by his mother, but also by his uncle,
Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers. As seen earlier, the young prince was put under his supervision
probably by order of the queen. Richard of Gloucester must have understood the full measure of
Anthony Woodville’s influence since he is the first person to have been executed on the duke’s
orders. From then on, the young king was kept close to the duke of Gloucester and the Woodvilles
did not retrieve their former place in government. The young prince was put in the Tower and
kept away from his mother’s influence. When the Duke of Gloucester became king, Elizabeth was
effectively kept away from any involvement in the governance of the kingdom. But it did not stop
the queen dowager to plot against the king in order to restore her family on the English throne.

After the failure of Buckingham’s rebellion and the hopes for the accession of Henry Tudor
decreasing more and more, Elizabeth began to think about getting out of Westminster Abby. Since
May 1483, she had lived there in sanctuary with her daughters and her second son, Richard duke
of York. In the following June, Gloucester convinced Elizabeth to surrender her son so he could
join his brother in the Tower. On 1 March 1484, King Richard made an oath before an assembly
of the three estates. He promised that if they went out of sanctuary and joined his court, no harm
would come to Elizabeth and her daughters. Furthermore, he promised to treat them well, and to
marry them to gentlemen, and “every of them give in marriage lands and tenements to the yearly
value of two hundred marks for the term of their lives”7. Having the daughters of Edward IV at
his court was a great political asset for Richard III. He could marry them to minor noblemen to
avoid any further Yorkist attempt to retrieve the throne. We don’t know if Elizabeth Woodville
had been won over by Richard, but her stay at his court was to be cut short by the Earl of
Richmond’s landing at Milford Heaven on 7 August 1485.

Henry VII’s first parliament restored Elizabeth Woodville’s “estate, dignity, pre-eminence
and name” and cancelled Richard III’s Titulus Regius8. The dowager queen seems to have been

7 ELLIS Henry (ed.), Original Letters, Illustrative of English History, Second Series, Book IV, AMS Press, New York,
1970, 149-150, quoted by OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth: England’s Slandered Queen, op. cit., p.238.
8 CAMPBEL William (ed.), Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII, Book I, Longman & Co., London, 1873,
p.121 quoted by OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth: England’s Slandered Queen, op. cit., p.244.
79
treated honourably at her daughter’s court. But even if Elizabeth Woodville outranked the
Countess of Richmond, it was she who was now the King’s mother and probably the most powerful
woman of the kingdom. Furthermore, Elizabeth of York was rather compliant and reserved, and
she did not try to outmatch her mother-in-law who exerted a great influence over the king. On 10
July 1495, Elizabeth Woodville obtained a lease from the Abbot of Westminster, for “a mansion
within the said Abbey called Cheyne gate […] with all the houses, chambers, aislement and other
[…]”. The indenture was made between the Abbot and “the most high and excellent Princess
Elizabeth by the grace of God Queen of England, late wife to the most mighty Prince of famous
memory Edward the IVth9.” According to Arlene Okerlund, the use of the term “princess” to refer
to Elizabeth hints to a change of status. In January 1486, she received part of her dower and the
totality in the following March. From then on, she could live anywhere she wanted and be an
exemplar widow, just as Christine de Pizan advised. She chose Cheneygate manor, within
Westminster Close, which was near Westminster Palace. On 2 February 1487, Henry VII met
with his council to deal with the Lambert Simnel rebellion. Polydore Vergil, writing about this
council also adds that:

Elizabeth the widow of King Edward was deprived by the decree of the same council of all
her possessions. This was done because she had made her peace with King Richard; had
placed her daughters at his disposal; and had, by leaving sanctuary, broken her promise to
those (mainly of the nobility) who had, at her own most urgent entreaty, forsaken their own
English property and fled to Henry in Brittany, the latter having pledged himself to marry
her elder daughter Elizabeth10.
But contrary to what Vergil claims, Elizabeth Woodville remained in good terms with Henry VII
since he continued to allow her grants to cover her expenses, all through her last years. Around 12
February 1487, she became a “boarder” at the Cluniac abbey of Bermondsey11. Some historians
have considered that Elizabeth had been sent there by Henry VII as a sort of punishment for her
supposed complicity in the Lambert Simnel rising. But the abbey’s chief benefactors had been the
Clare family, and Edward IV was the last male descendant of this family. Elizabeth may have
simply wished to retire and surrender her lands to facilitate her affairs, and as the wife of Edward
IV, she had a particular claim on the abbey’s hospitality12. She died there on 8 June 1492 aged
fifty-five. In the will she wrote two months prior her death, she expresses her wish to “be buried
with the body of my Lord at Windsor, according to the will of my said Lord and mine, without

9 Lease Book Number 1, 1486-1505, Westminster Abbey, f9, quoted by OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth: England’s
Slandered Queen, op. cit., p.245.
10 HAY Denis (ed.), The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil A.D. 1485–1537, Royal Historical Society, London, 1950,
quoted in OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth: England’s Slandered Queen, op. cit., p.246
11 OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth: England’s Slandered Queen, op. cit., p.248.
12 CRAWFORD Anne, “The Piety of Late Medieval English Queens”, in The Church in Pre-Reformation Society: Essays in
Honour of F.R.H. Du Boulay, ed. Caroline M. BARRON, Christopher HARPER-BILL, The Boydell Press,
Woodbridge, 1985, p.50.
80
pompous entering or costly expenses done thereabout”13. Her wishes were respected, and she was
buried in St George’s Chapel, beside King Edward IV. Like Margaret of Anjou, her later years
and burial were in stark contrast with the queenly status she had enjoyed in her lifetime and during
the reign of her husband. But unlike her predecessor, her political activity did not stop after her
husband’s and son’s death. On the contrary, she was particularly active in the Beaufort-Woodville
conspiracy after her sons’ death. She did everything in her power to put one of her children on the
throne, and if it wasn’t to be a son, it would be a daughter. Her life during Henry VII’s reign was
more similar to what the life of a queen dowager should be: she enjoyed her dowry rights and
grants from the king, while she stayed away from politics, only intervening in court ceremonies.

C – The Title of Queen

Most of the chronicles written about the first part of the Wars, from the 1450s to 1471 are
pro-Yorkist because they were written after the accession of Edward IV in 1461. Chronicles written
after 1485 on the other hand, were commonly hostile to Richard III and clearly pro-Tudor. While
the Wars of the Roses were fought for questions of legitimacy, one would expect the author’s
partisanship to be expressed in terms of legitimate and non-legitimate. From 1461 to 1471, the
Yorkist had their king and queen, Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, while the Lancastrians
had their own sovereigns, Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou. So technically, according to a
Lancastrian, Edward IV and his wife were not king and queen, they were only pretenders. It was
the same the other way around: for Yorkists Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou were the former
king and queens who had been rightfully deposed by Edward IV, who was now the only king of
England, and his wife the only queen. But the political leaning of the chroniclers did not appear in
the manner in which they mentioned Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville. Both were
called “queen” no matter the author’s convictions, and no matter which king was on the throne at
that time. I would argue that as those women had performed the ceremonies associated with
queenship, – marriage, coronation, and the rituals surrounding childbirth – as they were the kings’
wives, they had rightfully deserved their title of “queen”. And it seems that once this title had been
acquired, there was no removing of it. In Edward Hall’s chronicles, after her son’s death at the
battle of Tewkesbury and after her husband’s death few days later, Margaret of Anjou is still called
“queen”, be it by the early fifteenth-century chronicler Robert Fabyan14, or the Tudor chronicler

13 NICHOLS John (ed.), A Collection of all the Wills, now known to be extant, of the Kings and Queens of England, Princes and
Princesses of Wales, and every branch of the Blood Royal, from the reign of William the Conqueror, to that of Henry the Seventh,
exclusive, London, 1780, pp. 350-51, quoted by OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth: England’s Slandered Queen, op. cit.,
p.257.
14 “Whan kynge Edwarde hadde thus subduyd his enemyes, anone he sent quene Margarete vnto London, where
she restyd a season, and fynally she was sent home into her countre.”, FABYAN, New Chronicles, p.662.
81
Edward Hall15. The French chronicles, however, seem to be more attentive to Margaret’s
entitlement: when mentioning Margaret at the end of her life, after the deaths of her son and
husband, Philippe de Commynes presents her only as the widow of the English king16.

When comparing the neutrality of the queens’ mentions in chronicles with Richard III’s
proclamation to the lords and aldermen of the realm on 1 March 1484, the contrast is striking.
Richard’s goal was to convince Elizabeth Woodville to get out of sanctuary with her daughters and
to join his court. Even when wanting to gain Elizabeth’s trust, he still addressed the former queen
as “dame Elizabeth Grey, late calling herself Queen of England”17. By this formula, Richard
reminded everyone of Elizabeth’s lowly origins, but he also expressed his own legitimacy and that
of his wife by denying Elizabeth the title of queen. Thereby he also hinted at Edward IV’s own
illegitimacy. A similar formula is found in the Titulus Regius, the statute of Parliament of 1483 by
which the title of King was given to Richard III. Elizabeth’s lowly origins were stressed again, while
her right to be called queen was denied to her: “Elizabeth, sometime Wife to Sir John Grey Knight,
late naming her self and many years heretofore, Queen of England”18. One of the rare narrative
accounts that expresses its partisanship by highlighting the doubtful legitimacy of the opposite party
is the Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV. This chronicle relates Edward IV’s return from Flanders in
England to reclaim the crown in 1471, and it was written by an anonymous man who identifies
himself as one of Edward’s servants. This account is clearly Yorkist, but it is considered as one of
the most authoritative source on this period since the author claims to have experienced the events
he describes. When mentioning Lancastrian noblemen, the Prince of Wales, or Henry VI, the
author clearly marked his opinion about the legitimacy of the title they use:

Edmund, calling himself Duke of Somerset, John of Somerset, his brother, called Marquis
Dorset, Thomas Courtney, calling himself the Earl of Devonshire, being at London, had
knowledge out of France, that Queen Margaret, and her son called, Prince of Wales [were
partakers] in the quarrels of Henry called King, and occupying the regalia for that time19.
None of the male members of the Lancastrian party are legitimate in their title. Since king Henry
was not the rightful king anymore, then all of the titles that his supporters wore were not legitimate
either. In a Yorkist point of view the only titles that were legitimate were those granted by king
Edward. Furthermore, since Henry VI was not legitimate, then his son could not be called “Prince
of Wales”. This title was only reserved to the rightful heir to the throne, and for the Yorkists that

15 “Quene Margaret lyke a prisoner was brought to London, where she remayned tyll kyng Reiner her father
raunsomed her with money”, HALL, Union, p.301.
16 “Ladite Marguerite, vesve du roy d’Angleterre, privée de tous ses enfans vint en Anjou finir ses jours”,
COMMYNES Philippe de, Mémoires, ed. Joël BLANCHARD, Librairie générale française, Paris, 2001.
17 ELLIS Henry (ed.), Original Letters, Illustrative of English History, Second Series, Book IV, AMS Press, New York,
1970, pp.149-150, quoted by OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth: England’s Slandered Queen op. cit., p.238.
18 CWR, p.274.
19 Ibid., emphasis mine, p.56.
82
would be Edward IV and Elizabeth’s son who was born in sanctuary on 2 November 1470. So
technically, during few months, there were two “Prince of Wales”. But the caution that the author
shows for the male members of the Lancastrian party is not applied to the de facto head of that same
party: Margaret of Anjou. She is called “Queen Margaret” throughout all the narrative, while
Elizabeth Woodville is also called “queen”. That two queens could coexist at the same time did
not seem to bother the author as much as two coexisting kings or princes of Wales. Such a looser
approach to queens might be due to the fact that men bore more claim to the throne than women.
But in this case, Margaret did not have any claim to the throne in her own right. She was only the
wife of a king, and the mother of a prince. Thereby, if she was associated with men whose
legitimacy was doubtful, then her own was too since she could only act in the name of those same
male relatives. The difference between the majority of the chronicles and the Arrivall, as well as the
two proclamations made by Richard III may rest in the circumstances of their production. Indeed,
chronicles were written quite a while after the events had took place, so in retrospective, the titles
were not as important as they used to be. And since both Edward and Henry had been king, then
they could be called king whenever the author wanted. It must have been the same for the queens,
since both Margaret and Elizabeth had been queen consort, they deserved their title, no matter
who was the actual ruling sovereign. On the other hand, the Arrivall was written shortly after the
events, and it was explicitly made to praise Edward IV, hence the need to delegitimise the
Lancastrian party. Richard III’s proclamations too were made in the heat of the moment, when
he needed to delegitimise Edward IV’s line, in order to legitimise his own. To do so, he used every
mean he could, and that included questioning the legitimacy and the title Edward’s wife, through
whom his line was created. As queen, she drew her power from her husband, so if she was not
queen, that meant that Edward was not the rightful king and his children had no claim to the
throne.

II – Posing as Queen Dowager: Margaret Beaufort and Cecily

Neville
While Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville were called “queen dowager” or “queen
mother”, Cecily of York and Margaret Beaufort, both mothers of kings, did not bear such titles.
They had not been queen consort during their husbands’ lifetime, so they could not be queen
mother or queen dowager once their sons were on the throne. As I have argued, the title of queen
was to be earned by going through some particular ceremonies and performing specific duties. If
a woman did not perform those, she didn’t earn the right to be called queen, no matter the
evolution of her status at court. Because of the unstable political climate, Cecily Neville and
Margaret Beaufort both ended up as one of, if not the most powerful woman in the kingdom, each

83
in their own time. As they could not wear the title of queen, they made up for it by behaving like
dowager queens, especially by exercising their patronage or through the influence they had at court
and over their sons. They also fashioned themselves new titles or coat of arms in order to present
themselves in a queenly fashion.

A – Cultural and Religious Patronage

1. Cecily Neville’s Rational Patronage

Much like Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York, Cecily Neville showed a real concern
for the salvation of her soul. She became member of the Confraternity of the Cathedral Priory at
Canterbury. Her husband had been admitted in 1436 and Cecily was admitted in 1462, with her
daughter Margaret. The confraternity also ranked among her members Richard, Earl of Salisbury
and Richard, Earl of Warwick. The community’s role was to remember in prayer all of the
members of the confraternity, and this included the dead from both sides of the hostilities during
the Wars of the Roses20. According to Joanna Laynesmith, Cecily’s membership in their
confraternity affirmed the dynasty’s involvement in the institution and was also an expression of
her own religious interests. In return for their prayers, the confraternity expected generous gifts or
political support from its members21. In 1475, Cecily was involved by her son the king in the
foundation of the Guild of the Holy Trinity, Luton, which was near her castle of Berkhamsted.
The foundation licence was issued in May 1474, but it only mentioned Cecily among the people
for whom the chantry chaplains would pray.

Grant also of licence […] to found a chantry of two chaplains to celebrate divine service for
the good estate of the king and his consort Elizabeth, queen of England, […] and the soul
of the king’s father Richard, late duke of York, and the king’s progenitors22.
However, Cecily must have been present for the inauguration, and her role in the foundation is
illustrated in the guild book. Her name appeared on the first page, below the king’s and the queen’s
and she is depicted in the frontispiece illumination, alongside the sovereigns and members of the
court23.

Cecily Neville has been casted as a pious widow, but her patronage of religious institutions
shows a concern for earthly matters: it was more about good ladyship and dynastic responsibility
than devotion24. She often intervened in church appointments on her own estates. She was behind

20 CONNOR Meriel, “Brotherhood and Confraternity at Canterbury Cathedral Priory in the Fifteenth Century:
The Evidence of John Stone’s Chronicle”, in Archaeologia Cantiana, n°128, 2008, p.153.
21 LAYNESMITH Joanna L., Cecily Duchess of York, Bloomsbury, London, 2017, p.98.
22 CPR Edward IV, Henry VI, pp.446-447, quoted by TEARLE Barbara (ed.), The Accounts of the Guild of the Holy Trinity,
Luton 1526/7-1546/7, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2012, p.xix-xx.
23 LAYNESMITH, Cecily Duchess of York, p.138.
24 Ibid., p.113.
84
the nomination of her chaplain, John London, as rector of Brinkworth in Wiltshire. She had been
granted the privilege to do so by the abbot of Malmesbury, and she had interests there since
Brinkworth was near several manors of her. The church revenues provided her chaplain a good
income, which allowed him to continue to attend her during her travels25. She also was an active
patron of the college of Stoke by Clare: at the beginning of Edward IV’s reign, she appointed two
of her clerks as rectors at prebends in this institution. The dean of the college was William Wolflete,
who has been confessor to the duke of York and his wife during the 1450s, and he was one of the
duke’s administrators of his southern territories. In a letter to Wolflete, written during Edward IV’s
reign, Cecily of York appointed him as her “surveyor and great officer” in eastern England, for the
“counties of Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Huntingdon, and Hertford26.” This seems to indicate that
after the duke’s death, Wolflete kept his role of administrator in the duchess’s service, and
according to Joanna Laynesmith, he still was her confessor in her widowhood. Cecily also exerted
her patronage on the Augustinian house of Anglesey Priory. It had been founded by Henry I and
had been in the patronage of two families: the de Burghs and the Mortimers. From her husband,
Cecily had inherited the responsibility to protect the interests of her family in this house. She knew
that her best interests would not be served by placing one of her men as prior, but rather to appoint
a member of the community. Instead of using every opportunity to further the interests of the
members of her household, she showed a real political perspicacity.

Cecily also developed relationships with the major religious houses near her castles. The
local churches of Berkhamsted and Baynard’s Castle, Cecily’s own residences, must have expected
her patronage. Cecily provided materials and gifts of money, but she also presented at least three
rectors: John More, Henry Matthew and Thomas Lee, all three were part of her own household.
John More must have been especially close to her since in her will, she bequeathed him a purple
altar frontal a “Legend boke”, and a collect book27. In 1472, she was involved in the rebuilding
work of St Lawrence’s church in Lechlade. She was approached by a lawyer from Gloucestershire,
John Twyneho and the vicar of the church, Conrad Nye. As Laynesmith points out, Lechlade was
far from her usual residences, but the region was rich in wool production, and entertaining good
relations with its inhabitant could only benefit the wool production and trade of Cecily’s own
estates. Furthermore, the town had long enjoyed the patronage of her husband, so she had a
dynastic responsibility to perpetuate it. But her role in this church did not stop here. She was also
behind the foundation of a chantry in the church, probably on the initiative of Twyneho. To found
such a chantry, she obtained the patronage of an Augustinian house nearby and a licence to

25 Ibid., p.110.
26 GREEN Mary Anne Everett (ed.), Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies of Great Britain, from the commencement of the twelfth
century to the close of the reign of Queen Mary, Henry Colburn, London, 1946, p.107.
27 LAYNESMITH, Cecily Duchess of York, p.137.
85
suppress it and to divert its revenues to the church. The chantry was dedicated to St Mary, and
three chaplains were appointed to pray for the welfare of Edward IV and his queen, the duchess,
and the soul of Richard duke of York28.

Laynesmith argues that in comparison to her sons Richard’s and Edward’s patronage,
Cecily’s patronage was slim. In 1478, Richard had issued a license to found a college at Barnard
Castle and at Middleham. Edward IV involved his mother as well as other members of the royal
family in patronage activities. For example, in April 1478, he gave her the right to present a
candidate for a prebend at St Stephen's chapel in Westminster Palace. She shared this role with
her son Richard, her granddaughter, Elizabeth of York and William Lord Hastings, Edward IV’s
close friend29.

2. Lady Margaret Beaufort, “a veray patronesse”

Cecily of York was an active patron, but her patronage was mainly focused on ecclesiastical
nominations, grants or financial support to religious institutions. Lady Margaret Beaufort on the
other hand, engaged in more diverse types of patronage: from the foundation of colleges to the
patronage of the early printers. In her chaplain’s own words, she was “a veray patronesse”30.

Anne Crawford argues that her patronage was exceptional in the fifteenth century because
much of it was educational31. In 1496 and 1497, the king her son granted her licenses to found two
readerships in theology in Oxford and Cambridge. She must also have taken over the royal
patronage of Queens’ College before and mostly after the death of Elizabeth of York in 1503. In
1505, the duke of Buckingham gave 31 acres of land in Essex to Queens’: such a grant was made
under the influence of Margaret32. Around 1502, she appointed a Cambridge scholar, Dr John
Fisher, as her chaplain. He would exert much influence on her and especially in her educational
patronage: from then on, her charity would be more focused on Cambridge. In 1505, she
undertook the refounding of God’s House, Cambridge in a new college: Christ College. The
statutes were drawn in 1506: the college would be composed of a master, twelve fellows and forty-
seven scholars. It was endowed with five manors and lands, including those of Creke Abbey in
Norfolk. Fisher was appointed visitor for life, and Margaret reserved rooms for herself when she
would visit. In 1508, she turned toward another refounding. The Hospital of St John the Evangelist

28 Ibid., pp.137-138.
29 Ibid., p.152.
30 FISHER John Fisher, “A Mornyng Rememberaunce”, in The English works of John Fisher, ed. John E.B. MAYOR,
London, 1876, quoted by SUMMIT Jennifer, “William Caxton, Margaret Beaufort, and the Romance of Female
Patronage”, in Women, the Book and the Worldly: Selected Proceedings of the St. Hilda’s Conference, 1993, 2, ed. Lesley
SMITH, Jane H. M. TAYLOR, D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, 1995, p.152.
31 CRAWFORD Anne, “The Piety of Late Medieval English Queens”, op. cit., p.57.
32 TWIGG John, A History of Queens’ College, op. cit., p.10.
86
in Cambridge was falling into decay, there were few brethren, and the estates were in danger of
being dissipated. Lady Margaret, probably persuaded by John Fisher, decided to transform this
hospital into a college of St John that would welcome a master and fifty scholars33. She died the
following year but she left a codicil with her intentions and left it to her executors to fulfil them. In
her will, she increased the endowments to Christ’s College, as well as other educational foundations
such as the free school at Wimbourne34. Margaret Beaufort also strived to promote the devotion
to the Holy Name of Jesus. In the 1470s, Jesus brotherhood multiplied, and the Mass of the Holy
Name was one of the most popular. It was quickly appropriated by the elites, and in the 1480, it
became a feast under the patronage of Lady Margaret Beaufort, celebrated in January, eight days
after Christmas, in commemoration of the naming of Jesus. The Office was composed of her own
domestic clergy and its text was probably composed by a dean of her chapel35.

Margaret Beaufort’s patronage also extended to the first English printers such as William
Caxton, Wynkyn de Worde and Richard Pynson. She started commissioning books in the 1490s,
after her son Henry came to the throne and she spent more time in London, where she could have
direct contact with the book trade36. She was also the first Englishwoman to have her works
printed: her translation of the fourth book of The Imitation of Christ was printed in 1502-1504 by
Wynkyn de Worde and Richard Pynson and the Mirror of Gold for the Sinful Soul was printed in 1506
by Pynson. William Caxton’s Blanchardyn and Eglantine was translated from French and printed
under Margaret’s patronage, around 1489. His dedication retraces this patronage:

Unto the right noble puyssaunt & excellent pryncesse, my redoubted lady, my lady
Margarete, duchesse of Somercete / Moder vnto our naturel & souerayn lord and most
Crysten Kynge henry þe seuenth […] I, wyllyam caxton, his most Indygne humble subgette
and lytil seruaunt, presente this lytyl book vnto the noble grace of my sayd lady. whiche boke
I late receyued in frenshe from her good grace, and her commaundement wyth alle / for to
reduce & translate it in to our maternal & englysh tonge37.
We do not know how much Lady Margaret was involved in this production, if she was truly behind
it or if she only agreed to Caxton’s idea. Jennifer Summit argues that in this dedication, Caxton’s
printer role in a system of aristocratic patronage cohabits with his role as bookseller. Naming Lady
Margaret in the book promoted her patronage and in turn her patronage served to sell the book
to a larger public. Since the book bear the name of a royal lady, and a recognised patroness, it took

33 “Hospitals: St John the Evangelist, Cambridge” in A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely: Volume 2, ed.
Louis Francis SALZMAN, Victoria County History, London, 1948., pp. 303-307.
34 CRAWFORD Anne, “The Piety of Late Medieval English Queens”, op. cit., p.54.
35 DUFFY Eamon, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, c. 1400-1580, Yale University Press, New
Haven, 1992, p.115, p.284.
36 SCHUTTE Valerie, “Royal Tudor Women as Patrons and Curators”, in Early Modern Women: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 9, n°1, 2014, p.81.
37 CAXTON William, Caxton's Blanchardyn and Eglantine, c. 1489: from Lord Spencer's unique imperfect copy, completed by the
original French and the second English version of 1595, ed. Leon KELLNER, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1890, p.1.
87
on a special distinction that recommended it to potential buyers38.

In 1491, Caxton printed a collection of prayers, the Fifteen Oes under the joint patronage of
Lady Margaret and Queen Elizabeth, such as it appeared in the colophon:

Thiese prayers tofor wreton ben enprinted bi the commaundmentes of the most hye &
vertuous pryncesse our liege ladi Elizabeth by the grace of God Quene of Englonde & of
Fraunce. & also of the right hy and most noble pryncesse Margarete Moder vnto our
souerayn lorde the kyng39.
These prayers were reputed to have been written by St Bridget. Such a commission is yet another
indicator of the importance of the cult of St Bridget in England at that time, and especially its
importance for the royal family. Elizabeth of York’s cousin, Anne de la Pole was abbess of Syon
Abbey until 1501; and Margaret is known to have visited the abbey, she also left money to the nuns
in her will40. Caxton’s successor, Wynkyn de Worde also enjoyed Lady Margaret's patronage. In
1494, she commanded the publication of Walter Hilton’s Scala perfectionis, and de Worde salutes
her patronage at the end of his book:

This heuenly boke more precyous than golde

Was late direct wyth great humylyte
For godly plesur, theron to beholde
Unto the right noble Margaret as ye see
The kyngis moder of excellent bounte
Henry the seventh that Jhu hym preserve
This myghty pryncesse hath comaunded me
Temprynt this boke her grace for to deserve41.
This work was also associated with Syon Abbey since Walter Hilton’s book was held in high esteem
by the abbey: they owned several English as well as Latin manuscript version of this work.
According to George Keiser, Margaret's patronage of this specific work and of the Fifteen Oes is part
of the Lancastrian, and even specifically Beaufort tradition of support for Syon and for Syon’s
contribution to vernacular devotional literature. Margaret was following the tradition initiated by
her grandmother, Margaret Holland, Duchess of Clarence42. In 1509, the year of Lady Margaret's
death, Wynkyn de Worde put words on what had been a de facto situation since he had taken over
Caxon’s print shop in 1495 by styling himself “prynter unto the moost excellent pryncesse my lady

38 SUMMIT Jennifer, “William Caxton, Margaret Beaufort” op. cit., p.154.

39 CAXTON William, O Jhesu endless swetnes of louying soules, Westminster, 1491, quoted by SCHUTTE Valerie, “Royal
Tudor Women”, op. cit., p.80.
40 LAYNESMITH, The Last Medieval Queens, p.212.
41 AMES Joseph (ed.), Typographical antiquities: being an historical account of printing in England: with some memoirs of our
ancient printers, and a register of the books printed by them, from the year MCCCCLXXI to the year MDC. With an appendix
concerning printing in Scotland and Ireland to the same time, W. Faden, London, 1749, p.84.
42 KEISER George R., “Patronage and Piety in Fifteenth-century England: Margaret, duchess of Clarence, Symon
Wynter and Beinecke MS 317, in The Yale University Library Gazette, 60, n°1/2, 1985, pp.43-44.
88
the kynge's moder43.”

Just like queens, Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort exerted their influence and used
their wealth to promote people or religious foundations that reflected their own convictions.
Patronage was also a way for noblewomen to make their way in a political landscape largely
dominated by men. By choosing to favour certain persons over other, they created themselves a
network of connections and trusty people in all kinds of domains. Moreover, by being such active
patrons, they were able to fabricate themselves a queen-like public image.

B – Self-fashioning: A Queen Not in Title but in Style

1. Cecily Neville: From Duchess of York to Queen of Right

During the first four years of Edward IV’s reign, Cecily of York styled herself “the king’s
mother, duchess of York”. It is she who turned the expression into a specific title, using it in her
letters and on her seals. By using such a title, she highlighted her royal status by associating herself
with her son whose kingship was the most obvious proof of Cecily’s dignity. Joanna Laynesmith
argues that she did not need elaborate titles for she was extremely wealthy, and she was the one
person in the kingdom with the most influence over the new king. The Bishop of Elphin, Nicholas
O’Flanagan writing in 1461 to the papal legate Francesco Coppini advised him to “write to the
king, the chancellor, and other lords, as I see they wish it; also to the duchess, who has great a
regard for you, and can rule the king as she pleases (et habet regere Regem sicut vult)44.” In his letter, the
bishop recognised that Cecily was someone powerful that could influence the king even more than
the other dukes and lords. As mother of the king, she could carry weight in Edward’s decisions, all
the more so as Cecily seems to have had a close relationship with her sons and with Edward in
particular. But throughout her son’s reign, Cecily changed her signature, her own title, and her
seals, to reflect her high status, and to make up for the title of “queen dowager” that she could not
wear. Her great seal was 8 cm in diameter, which was wider than those of previous English queens,
and Laynesmith argues that Elizabeth Woodville may have adopted a 9 cm great seal in response
to Cecily’s. Cecily’s signature too was different from noblewomen usual signatures. High-born
ladies usually signed with their name and the place from which they drew her title, while queens
only signed with their Christian name. In Cecily’s letters that have survived, she signed only with
her name. Considering her attachment to the dynasty and to her husband, it is surprising that she
just would not mention York. But by using only her Christian name, Cecily fashioned herself a

43 ROUTH Enid M.G., “Lady Margaret: a memoir of Lady Margaret Beaufort, countess of Richmond & Derby,
mother of Henry VII”, Oxford University Press, London, 1924, quoted by SUMMIT Jennifer, “William Caxton,
Margaret Beaufort”, op. cit., p.156.
44 CSP Milan, I, p.67, quoted by LAYNESMITH, Cecily Duchess of York, p.85.
89
queenly identity. She never used the Marian iconography that was associated with queenship, so
it seemed that she was less interested in its spiritual significance than in its secular aspect, that of
the Virgin as Mother of Christ45. This mother-and-son relationship mirrored exactly her
relationship with her son Edward. As kings were often compared with Christ, it is logic that the
king’s mother would be associated with the Virgin Mary. Since she had been close to the
Lancastrian court, Cecily could use her influence and connexions to draw previously Lancastrian
women to the Yorkist side, much like a queen would have done.

After Edward IV’s marriage, Cecily remained an important figure at court and in the royal
family. But from then on, she fashioned herself a new identity that emphasised her son’s status as
much as her late husband’s46. In John Herryson of Cambridge’s Abbreviata Cronica, for the year
1465-1466, Cecily is mentioned as “the ryghtful enheritors Wyffe late of the Regne off England &
of Fraunce & off the lordschyppe off yrlonde, the kynges mowder ye Duchess of Yorke47.” This
formula made it clear that if Richard duke of York had been alive, he would be king, and Cecily
would be queen. This title also appeared on her great seal and the falcon represented on her coat
of arms wore a ducal coronet. This new identity reinforced Cecily’s central role in the creation of
the Yorkist dynasty. In 1474, she was involved by Edward IV in the creation of the Guild of the
Holy Trinity, Luton. On the first pages of the guild’s book, her name appears below the king’s and
the queen’s, but it takes much more space than theirs. Indeed, she was entered as:

the most excellent princess Lady Cecily mother of the supreme and illustrious lord our King
Edward and recently wife of the renowned and famous and very powerful prince Richard
true and undoubted heir to the crown of England father to the most noble lord our king
abovesaid.
This formula combines Cecily’s two previous titles. She is associated to the two male relatives that
gave her her royal status: her son and her husband. Strikingly, the laudatory adjectives do not
apply directly to Cecily, but to her son the king and her husband the duke. Through her association
with them, these adjectives eventually also apply to her. Such a title shows yet again Cecily’s deep
concern with the promotion of the Yorkist dynasty in the way the emphasis is put on the family
relationships. It also combines a past when the duke of York was not recognised as king and a
present when the duke’s heir is now the undisputed king of England. The link between these two
moments is Cecily herself. This same title would be used by the duchess in a more restricted form
in a letter addressed to the Mayor of Windsor for the promotion of one of her servants: “By the
rightful inheritor’s wife of the realm of England and of France, and lordship of Ireland, the king’s

45 LAYNESMITH, Cecily Duchess of York, p.100.

46 Ibid., p.115.
47 SMITH John James (ed.), Abbreviata Cronica, Cambridge Antiquarian Society, vol.1, 1840, p.9, quoted by
LAYNESMITH, Cecily Duchess of York, p.119.
90
mother, Duchess of York48.”

Later in her life, during the reign of Henry VII, she would use the title “grandmother of
the queen”. Here again, she associated herself to the relative from whom she drew her royal status,
but this time, it was not a man but a woman. This is quite exceptional, since it was highly unusual
for a woman to define herself according to her relationship with another woman. Furthermore,
Cecily could also claim to be the one Elizabeth held her royal status from. The Luton Guild Book’s
frontispiece illumination (Fig. 7) is worth some closer study within the frame of Cecily’s key role in
the royal family. She is depicted alongside the queen, Elizabeth Woodville and other noble ladies.
Her style of dress and headwear is identical to the queen’s. The queen’s dress is of gold
embroidered with blue designs, a Marian colour. Cecily’s dress is embroidered in a deeper shade
of gold than the main cloth of the gown, mirroring the king’s gown. Furthermore, her role as
“vessel through who Edward claimed his throne and as a wife of a true king” is marked out by her
cloak which it is decorated with the royal arms of England49. Visually, Cecily is associated with the
royal couple and with the throne of England. During the late 1470s, she began to use yet another
title, this time clearly expressing her queenly status. In the account of the wedding of Richard duke
of York and Anne Mowbray in 1478, Cecily is mentioned alongside Edward IV and his queen, as
“the right high and excellent Princesse and Queene of right, Cicelie, Mother to the Kinge50”. Here
again, her title emphasised her role to ensure the dynastic continuity. Since queenship was
conditional, Cecily could not refer to her quasi-queenly status by using plainly the word “queen”,
she had to tone down its meaning and implications by using it alongside adjectives or by alluding
to it through periphrasis.

2. Margaret Beaufort, My Lady the King’s Mother

During the reign of her son, Henry VII, Margaret Beaufort was the richest and most
influential woman in the kingdom. As well as being a royal mother, she was an independent
woman. In Henry VII’s first parliament in 1485, she was declared a femme sole: that meant that
even though she was still married to Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby, she had complete
independence over her own lands and finances. She could act as a “sole persone not covert of anie
husband51”. This status was usually achieved only through widowhood. After Edward IV marriage,
Cecily Neville’s influence over the king could be matched or outmatched by the new queen.

48 BL Harl. MS 787, fol. 2 Wood, vol.I, letter xl., quoted by CRAWFORD Anne (ed.), Letters of the Queens of England
1100-1547, Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1997, p.142.
49 LAYNESMITH, Cecily Duchess of York, p.140.
50 “Wedding of Richard duke of York and Anne Mowbray, 1478”, in Illustrations of Ancient State and Chivalry, ed.
W.H. BLACK, Roxburghe Club, London, 1840, p.29, quoted by LAYNESMITH, Cecily Duchess of York, p.131.
51 Rotuli Parliamentorum, ed. John STRACHEY et alii, vol. VI, London, 1767-1777, pp.284, 311-312, quoted by JONES
Michael K., UNDERWOOD Malcolm G., The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992, p.98.
91
Elizabeth of York, Henry VII’s wife, on the other hand, must have exerted some influence over
her husband, but their relationship did not challenge the strong connexion the king had with his
mother. Lady Margaret addressed her son as her “dearest and only desired joy in this world52” or
as “my own sweet and most dear King and all my worldly joy53”. In return, the king referred to
his “grete and singular moderly love and affection54”. According to Margaret Beaufort’s
biographers, Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood, her status was semi-regal. At Elizabeth of
York’s coronation, it was she who accompanied the queen, and in the parliament chamber, she sat
on her right. During the Christmas celebrations of 1487, one observer noted that she was wearing
“like mantell and surcott as the quene, with a rich corrownall on her hede55”. The next year, she
was issued with a livery of the Order of the Garter along with Elizabeth of York: during the
ceremony, she wore identical dress as the queen: “robes of sanguine cloth furred with minever and
woven with garter letters of gold56”. This reminds the comparison that was made between
Elizabeth of York and Anne Neville at Richard III’s court. In both cases, the queen was put in the
second plan, and the person who was the centre of the attention took on a queenly aura. Around
1503, Lady Margaret wrote ordinances for mourning where she described the proper way for
noblewomen to dress during funerals. The king’s mother’s part immediately follows the queen’s,
and her dress is to be made “in every thinge lyke to the qwene57” even though the queen wore a
crown, while the king’s mother wore a coronet58. Margaret Beaufort’s coat of arms bore the royal
coronet with its fleurs-de-lys. Just like Cecily of York, she was the vessel through which Henry had
accessed the throne, and her status reflected on him just as much as his status reflected on her. In
St John’s College, Cambridge, there is a portrait of Lady Margaret, only recently attributed to the
Dutch artist Meynnart Wewyck (Fig. 8) by Dr Andrew Chen59. This portrait was commissioned

52 Wood, vol. I, letter xlviii., quoted by CRAWFORD Anne (ed.), Letters of the Queens of England, op. cit., p.150.
53 Cotton MS, Vespasian F XIII, fol. 60. Holograph. Ellis, Original Letters, vol. I, letter xxii., quoted by CRAWFORD
Anne (ed.), Letters of the Queens of England, op. cit., p.149.
54 Quoted by JONES Michael K., UNDERWOOD Malcolm G., The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of
Richmond and Derby, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992, p.74.
55 LELAND John, De Rebus Brittanicis Collecteana, vol. III, ed. Thomas HEARNE, London, 1774, p.236, quoted by
JONES Michael K., UNDERWOOD Malcolm G., The King’s Mother, op. cit., p.69.
56 Ibid., vol. IV, pp.238, 254, quoted by JONES Michael K., UNDERWOOD Malcolm G., The King’s Mother, op. cit.,
p.69.
57 BL Add. MS. 45133, fol. 141v., quoted by FISHER Sally, “‘Margaret R’: Lady Margaret Beaufort’ Self-fashioning
and Female Ambition”, in Virtuous or Villainess? The Image of the Royal Mother from the Early Medieval to the Early Modern
Era, ed. Carey FLEINER, Elena WOODACRE, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2016, p.163.
58 “Because of the ordinances permitting her, as the King’s mother, to wear a surcoat, a hood, and other attire like
that of the Queen, scholars, such as Charles Cooper, Pearl Hogrefe, and Linda Simon have charged that she
attempted to challenge the social position of her daughter-in-law. In fact, the outfits of these two were never
completely identical, for the Countess wore only a coronet and not a crown and seems to have assumed a status
like that of queen dowagers, who were expected to maintain many of the privileges that they had exercised as
queen consorts.”, WARNICKE Retha, “The Lady Margaret, Countess of Richmond: A Noblewoman of
Independent Wealth and Status, in Fifteenth Century Studies, n°9, 1984, p.224.
59 Painting of mother of King Henry revealed as oldest large-scale portrait of an English Woman, 2019, [online], Available at
https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/painting-mother-king-henry-vii-revealed-oldest-large-scale-portrait-english-woman,
[Accessed 3 June 2019].
92
shortly after Margaret’s death by her advisor, Bishop John Fisher. The portrait was promised to St
John’s College Library, in Cambridge and arrived there in 1534. Margaret is depicted kneeling in
prayer, wearing her widow or vowess attire. The canopy over her head and behind her is
embroidered with a Tudor Rose and her coat of arms, as well as her badge, the Beaufort Portcullis.
This portrait combines two aspects of Margaret Beaufort’s life: her piety and her royal status60.

Margaret herself seemed to have been very conscious of her rank and she stressed it through
the use of the title “My Lady the King’s Mother”, the same title that Cecily of York had used. Her
signature too changed few years after her son became king. From the 1460s to 1499 she used to
sign “M. Richmond”. In 1499, in a letter to her king, she used for the first time the signature
“Margaret R”61. According to Anne Crawford, this signature reflected the common aristocratic
style of signature that consisted in using only one’s Christian name to stress one’s royal title, just
like Cecily Neville had done. But the initial “R.” is ambiguous since it could stand for “Richmond”
as well as for “Regina”. Henry VII signed his letters with “HR” and his queen signed “Elizabeth
R”, for “Regina”. Margaret’s change of signature has been understood by Jones and Underwood
as reflecting her new role at court. It was around this time that she established her own court,
separate from her husband’s, in Northamptonshire, at her home of Collyweston Palace62. Sally
Fisher argues that the change in signature was deliberate and that Lady Margaret recognised the
importance of justifying her ambition. Her great influence and active role were grounded in her
motherhood as well as her nobility. Her signature thus reflected this dual identity, and it is possible
that the ambiguity of the “R” was intentional63. Furthermore, Margaret came from the Beaufort
line, whose legitimacy had been questioned. Reinforcing her royal status and noble birth was a
way to fashion herself a queen-like identity. That this “R” could also stand for “Richmond” could
also place Lady Margaret as the king’s only living connection to Earls of Richmond and the Tudor
line. Sally Fisher further argues that by combining those two identities, Margaret was able to
represent female ambition as justifiable: both by her ancestors and by her descendants64. In the
introduction of the mourning ordinances she wrote, she presents herself as

the Right his myghty and excellent princesse Margaret countesse of Richemond doughter
and soule here of that noble prince John duc of Somersett and moder to our most drade
soverain lord king henry the VIIth65.
In this long title, she shows her progression towards the royal status: she was first a daughter, then

60 Ibid., pp.10, 13.

61 Cotton MS, Vespasian F XIII, fol. 60. Holograph. Ellis, Original Letters, vol. I, letter xxii., quoted by CRAWFORD
Anne (ed.), Letters of the Queens of England, op. cit, p.149.
62 JONES Michael K., UNDERWOOD Malcolm G., The King’s Mother, op. cit., p.86.
63 FISHER Sally, “‘Margaret R’”, op. cit., pp.152-153.
64 Ibid., pp.157, 159.
65 BL Add. MS. 45133, fol. 141v., quoted by ibid, p.161.
93
a wife and eventually a mother. Sally Fisher comments that these titles were essential in justifying
her ambitions. Each title taken on its own was important, but the whole was even stronger.
Moreover, if one of her identities was questioned or threatened, she still could draw her power
from her other titles and identities66.

Both of those women exerted a great influence on their sons and grandchildren. Cecily
Neville worked actively to reconcile her son George of Clarence when he distanced himself from
Edward IV and joined Warwick’s rebellion. She also had much influence on the piety of her
granddaughters Elizabeth of York and her sisters Cecily and Bridget. Margaret Beaufort’s
influence over her son was even more important since he was her only child, and they had a
particularly close mother-and-son relationship. Both of these women’s influence is also
quantitative: Cecily of York and Margaret Beaufort appear more in narrative as well as
administrative sources than other queens such as Anne Neville, or Elizabeth of York. Their
ancestry, wealth and connexions were extremely useful for their sons’ accession to the throne, and
both of them played the queenly role of the mediatrix, by rallying the aristocracy to their sons’ cause.
Those two formidable women came from the same circles so they knew each other and may even
have maintained friendly relations. In her will, Cecily Neville bequeathed one of her book of hours
to Lady Margaret, as they both shared a deep piety. Unlike the queens of the Wars of the Roses,
who were much younger than them, they could claim to have lived through all of the political
troubles of the time. Cecily of York died on 31 May 1495, at the honourable age of eighty, having
outlived her husband, all of her sons and one of her daughters. Margaret Beaufort too outlived her
son Henry by two months, as well as her four husbands: she died on 29 June 1509, aged sixty-six.
Even though they exerted much power and influence over the king, the picture that was painted
of them was not a negative one, unlike some of the queens I have studied. Perhaps, as they were
not queen, they were not held at the same high standards as Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth
Woodville for example. Both king’s mothers had already fulfilled the first duty that was expected
of a woman: bearing children. Once their children acceded to the throne, they had no other precise
role to fulfil. They were free to act as noblewomen and even almost as queens without the pressure
that could come with bearing the title of queen.

66 FISHER Sally, “‘Margaret R’”, op. cit., p.162.

94
 CONCLUSION

The queens of the Wars of the Roses have all been cast in definite role by historiography.
The authors of these portrayals were mostly chroniclers in the Tudors’ service. In their accounts
of the Wars of the Roses, each character had its own place, and each queen could be used as a
general comment on women, a model to imitate or an embodiment of all feminine flaws. Such
representations of those women have then been spread to a wider audience through Shakespeare’s
plays. Among the sources he acknowledged features Holinshed’s Chronicles whose narrative is filled
with paradigms and rhetorical figures that shape the destinies of the historical figures, as well as
the events of English history. For the general public, the six women I studied – and the actors of
the Wars of the Roses in general – became characters from plays, rather than historical figures:
their personality traits could be thus exaggerated.
Margaret of Anjou was first cast as an ordinary bride, whose marriage would seal an
alliance and bring peace to two kingdoms. But her image changed along with the politics: she
became mostly known as the indefatigable warring queen, and eventually as a grieving mother. In
Shakespeare’s plays, her persistence continues even after her death when she comes back as a ghost
to haunt Richard III. Elizabeth Woodville’s historiographical fate was more mixed than
Margaret’s. Praised for her beauty, her biggest fault was her lowly origin and her promotion of her
large family. Shakespeare rewriting of history has been quite damaging for Anne Neville’s image.
While she rarely appears in the sources, she was the daughter of one of the most influential
noblemen in England during the Wars, she married a prince and a king, and she must have had
far more agency in her destiny than her theatrical alter ego. In Shakespeare’s Richard III, Anne is
cast as the victim of Richard’s manipulation. In one scene, she turns from a grieving widow, whose
husband and father-in-law have been killed by Richard, to this same Richard’s future wife, all
thanks to Gloucester’s rhetoric. Elizabeth of York was cast by Tudor chroniclers as the fair, pious,
obedient and ideal queen. But she doesn’t appear physically in Shakespeare’s plays: she is only
mentioned as a marriage commodity, cast as the passive witness of her destiny. Cecily Neville’s
role in the Tudor chroniclers is two-sided: she is recognised as a powerful noblewoman holding
great influence over her son; but she appears also as another victim of Richard’s villainess when
he accuses her of adultery in order to make his own claim to the throne. Shakespeare’s version of
Cecily is also as a victim of Richard since she has to deal with the death of three sons and two
grandsons all because of her youngest son’s actions. Margaret Beaufort was remembered for her
piety and her great patronage, both religious and educational. For the Tudors, she was considered
as the grandmother of the dynasty, but she also was the driving force behind her son’s accession to
the throne, and had a great influence on her grandson Henry, Duke of York and later King Henry
95
VIII. But she is the great absent of Shakespeare’s play: all of Richmond’s enterprises are managed
by himself and his followers that include his stepfather, Lord Stanley, and the Earl of Oxford
among others.
In studying these women’s power, how they acquired it and how they wielded it, I managed
to sketch portraits of common fifteenth-century noblewomen who were drawn into the troubled
politics of that time. Their lesser or greater involvement in those same politics depends both on
these women’s character and on the circumstances of their reigns. Margaret of Anjou had certainly
been educated in a family where women had great power and did not hesitate to take over when
men were not available. But her almost-regent status was also largely due to Henry VI’s mental
breakdown, that coincided with the birth of her son and heir to the throne. In a sort of domino-
effect progression, it is that same involvement in the kingdom’s affairs that shaped their later image.
The elements I have put forward as the sources of the queen’s power were not all the
defining characteristic of fifteenth century queenship. Patronage for example was a great source of
power for noblewomen but the most active ones were not necessarily the queens, but rather
widowed noblewomen, such as Cecily Neville or Margaret Beaufort. Admittedly, the queen’s
intercessory role was expressed during ceremonies, but such a function was not as a distinctive for
late medieval queenship as it had been in earlier periods, such as the works of Lois Huneycutt and
Joh Cami Parsons suggested67. What is true for all queens of all periods is the great power their
children gave them. Their proximity to the king and to the heir to the throne gave them a great
influence that could prove useful to further the interests of those close to her, be it her family or
her trusted servants. Once they had children all of their actions were determined by them, and the
most active women during this period were, for the most part, furthering their children’s interests.
Margaret of Anjou’s involvement in the kingdom affairs began at her son’s birth and became even
more extensive when the Duke of York made his claim to the throne, threatening the Prince of
Wales’ rights. Elizabeth Woodville’s flight into sanctuary was to protect herself and her children
from Warwick and the Lancastrians in 1470 and from Richard III in 1483, and her plot with
Margaret Beaufort was aimed to put her daughter on the throne, as was her rightful place. Edward
of Middleham’s short life and Anne Neville’s death following his, did not gave his mother the
occasion to get much involved in his education and his accession to the throne. Elizabeth of York
was particularly close to her children since most of the time, she lived with three of them in Eltham
Palace, in the South-East of London, her first-born son Arthur, Prince of Wales, living in his castle

67 LAYNESMITH, The Last Medieval Queens, p.263.

HUNEYCUTT Lois L., “Intercession and High-Medieval Queen: The Esther Topos”, in Power of the Weak, ed.
Jennifer CARPENTER, Sally-Beth MACLEAN, University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1995, pp.126-146.
PARSONS John Cami, “The Queen’s Intercession in Thirteenth-Century England”, in Power of the Weak, ed.
Jennifer CARPENTER, Sally-Beth MACLEAN, University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1995, pp.147-177.
96
at Ludlow. Cecily Neville laboured to insure peace and good relations between her three sons.
Eventually, Margaret Beaufort put much of her energy in trying to put her son on the throne, even
if he was not the most obvious candidate. The royal women of the Wars of the Roses thus used
everything at their disposal in order to assert their power and make themselves actors to be
reckoned with.
As I did all of my research in France, I didn’t have the opportunity to consult some sources
that are only available in England. For my future research, I intend to include such sources. I also
would like to study more closely the kind of relationships these women maintained between them.
Even if they were representatives of warring parties, they came from the same circles and some of
them even maintained friendly relationships: Cecily Neville and Margaret of Anjou were close, as
were Cecily and Margaret Beaufort. Elizabeth Woodville must have had bonds of trust – if not of
friendship – with Margaret Beaufort, as they plotted to marry their children. Anne Neville’s
relationship with her own sister is also interesting: they were both married to the king’s brothers,
both endeavoured to receive their share of the Warwick inheritance but their husbands did not
always entertain friendly relationships, especially on the occasions of George of Clarence’s
rebellions and his later execution. I could also extend this to other relationship such as the one
between Anthony Woodville and his sister Elizabeth Woodville: thanks to his sister he quickly
gained the king’s favour and was trusted with the tutelage of the heir to the throne. The character
of Lord Rivers also opens another option of further study. His career is quite interesting, and it
would be interesting to study him as an actor of the Wars of the Roses but also as the cultivated
man versed in philosophy, translation and writing he was.

97
98
 Appendix

Fig. 1 Elizabeth Woodville in the Guild Book of the Worshipful Company of the London Skinner’s Fraternity of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary,
c.1472, London, Guildhall Library, MS 31692.

99
Fig. 2 The Coronation of the Virgin in the Guild Book of the Worshipgul Company of the London Skinner’s Fraternity of the Assumption of the Virgin
Mary, c.1472, London, Guildhall Library, MS 31692.

100
Fig. 3 Anne Neville in the Rous Roll, c.1483, London, British Library, Add MS 48976, f.8ar.

101
Fig. 4 Richard III and Anne Neville in the Salisbury Roll of Arms, c. 1483-1485, London, British Library, Add. MS 45133, f.54.

102
Fig. 5 Top-half of The Prayer Roll of Margaret of Anjou, third quarter of the 15th century, Oxford, Bodleian Library,
Jesus College MS 124.

103
Fig. 6 (detail) Margaret of Anjou in The Prayer Roll of Margaret of Anjou, third quarter of the 15th century, Oxford, Bodleian Library,
Jesus College MS 124.

104
Fig. 7 Frontispiece of the Luton Guild Book (Elizabeth Woodville on the right, Cecily of York behind her), c.1475, Luton, Wardown
Museum and Art Gallery.

105
Fig. 8 Meynnart Wewyck, first quarter of the 16th century, Portrait of Lady Margaret Beaufort, [oil on panel] Master’s Lodge of St
John’s College, Cambridge, 180x122 cm.

106
107
 Bibliography
Primary Sources

Published Sources

AMES Joseph (ed.), Typographical antiquities: being an historical account of printing in England: with some
memoirs of our ancient printers, and a register of the books printed by them, from the year MCCCCLXXI to the year
MDC. With an appendix concerning printing in Scotland and Ireland to the same time, W. Faden, London,
1749.

BARNHOUSE Rebecca (ed.), The Book of the Knight of the Tower. Manners for Young Medieval Women,
Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2006.

BENTLEY Samuel (ed.), Excerpta historica, or Illustrations of English history, London, 1831.

BOURDIGNIE Jehan de, Chroniques d’Anjou et du Maine, vol.1, ed. Théodore comte de
QUATREBARBES, Cosnier et Lachèse, Angers, 1842.

Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland (1484-1492), XIV, ed. Jesse
A. TWEMLOW, HMSO, London, 1893 (1960).

Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, Papal Letters, XVI, ed. Anne
P. FULLER, Stationary Office, Dublin, 1986.

Calendar of Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, Papal Letters, XVII, ed. Anne P. FULLER,
Irish Manuscripts Commission, Dublin, 1994.

Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts existing in the Archives and Collections of Milan, ed. Alan B. HINDS,
HMSO, London, 1912.

Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, ed. Alan B. HINDS, HMSO,
London, 1912.

Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, 1441-1509, HMSO, London, 1897-1916.

CAPGRAVE Johannes, Liber de Illustribus Henricis, ed. Francis C. HINGESTON, London, 1857.

CAXTON William, Caxton's Blanchardyn and Eglantine, c. 1489: from Lord Spencer's unique imperfect copy,
completed by the original French and the second English version of 1595, ed. Leon KELLNER, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1890.

CESSOLES Jacques de, Caxton’s Game and Playe of the Chesse, trans. William Caxton, ed. William E.A.
AXON, Elliot Stock, London, 1883.

―, Le jeu des eschaz moralisé, ed. Alain COLLET, Honoré Champion, Paris, 1999.
108
CHASTELAIN Georges, Chronique des ducs de Bourgogne, II, ed. Jean-Alexandre BUCHON, Librairie
Verdière, Paris, 1827.

COMMYNES Philippe de, Mémoires, ed. Joël BLANCHARD, Librairie générale française, Paris, 2001.

CRAWFORD Anne (ed.), Letters of the Queens of England 1100-1547, Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1997.

DAVIES John Silvester (ed.), An English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V and Henry
VI written before the Year 1471, Camden Society, Oxford, 1854.

ELLIS Henry (ed.), Original Letters illustrative of English history; including numerous royal letters from autographs
in the British Museum and one or two other collections, vol. I, Harding, Triphook and Lepard, London,
1825.

FABYAN Robert, The New Chronicles of England and France, ed. Henry ELLIS, F.C & J. Rivington,
London, 1811.

GAIRDNER James, (ed.), Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, 2 vols,
Longman, London, 1861.

―, Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the fifteenth century, Camden Society, London, 1876
(2007).

―, History of the life and reign of Richard the third to which is added the Story of Perkin Warbeck from original
documents, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1878 (2010).

―, Three fifteenth-century Chronicles with Historical Memoranda by John Stowe, Camden Society, London,
1880.

GILES John Allen (ed.), The Chronicles of the White Rose of York, James Bohn, London, 1845.

GREEN Mary Anne Everett (ed.), Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies of Great Britain, from the
commencement of the twelfth century to the close of the reign of Queen Mary, Henry Colburn, London, 1846.

HALL Edward, The Union of the two noble families of Lancaster and York, ed. Henry ELLIS, Longman,
Hurst, Rees and Orme, London, 1809.

HARDY Thomas Duffus (ed.), Descriptive Catalogue of Materials Relating to the History of Great Britain and
Ireland to the End of the Reign of Henry VII, Longman, London, 1862.

HARDYNG John, Chronicle: edited from British Library MS Lansdowne 204, ed. Sarah PEVERLEY, James
SIMPSON, Medieval Institute Publications, Kalamazoo, 2015.

HARRIS Mary D. (ed.), The Coventry Leet Book, Kegand Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co, London, 1907.

HEYWOOD Thomas (ed.), The Most Pleasant Song of Lady Bessy: and how she married King Henry the Seventh,
of the House of Lancaster, Richard Taylor, London, 1829.

109
KINGSFORD Charles Lethbridge (ed.), Chronicles of London, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1905.

LEGG L. G. Wickham (ed.), English Coronation Records, Archibald Constable & Co., Westminster,
1901.

LELAND John, “The Coronation of Lady Elizabeth, King Henry VIIth’s Wife, in the 3d Year of his
Raigne”, in De Rebus Britannicis Collecteana, IV, ed. Thomas HEARNE, London, 1774.

LETTS Malcolm (ed.), The Travels of Leo of Rozmital through Germany, Flanders, England, France, Spain,
Portugal and Italy, 1465-1467, Ashgate, Farnham, 2010.

LYDGATE John, Mummings and entertainment, ed. Claire SPONSLER, Medieval Institute Publications,
Kalamazoo, 2010.

MADDEN Frederic, “Documents relating to Perkin Warbeck, with Remarks on his history;
communicated in a Letter to the Right Honorable the Earl of Aberdeen, Pres. S.A., from Sir
Frederic Madden, K.H., F.R.S., F.S.A., written of the 21st of March 1838”, Archaeologia, 27, 1838,
153-210.

MANCINI Dominic, The Usurpation of Richard the Third, ed. C.A. John ARMSTRONG, Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1936.

MATHESON Lister M. (ed.), “Warkworth’s Chronicle: the Chronicle attributed to John Warkworth,
Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge”, in Death and Dissent: Two Fifteenth-century Chronicles, The Boydell
Press, Woodbridge, 1999, 61-124.

MOLINET Jean, Chroniques, vol. 1-5, ed. Jean-Alexandre BUCHON, Verdière, Paris, 1828-1828.

MONRO Cecil (ed.), Letters of Margaret of Anjou and bishop Beckington and others, Camden Society,
Westminster, 1863.

MONTAIGLON Anatole de (ed.), Le Livre du Chevalier de la Tour-Landry pour l’enseignement de ses filles,
Librairie Plon, Paris, 1854.

MORE Thomas, The Complete Works of St Thomas More, 2, The History of Richard III ed. Richard S.
SYLVESTER, Yale University Press, New Heaven, 1963.

MYERS Alec R., CLOUGH Cecil H., DOBSON R. Barrie, Crown, Household and Parliament in Fifteenth
Century England, Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2003.

NICHOLS John (ed.), A Collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the Governement of the Royal Household
made in Divers Reigns. From king Edward III to king William and Queen Mary, Society of Antiquaries,
London, 1790.

NICOLAS Nicholas Harris (ed.), Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York: Wardrobe Accounts of Edward
IV, W. Pickering, London, 1830.

110
DAVIS Norman (ed.), Paston Letters and Papers of the fifteenth century, Part I & II, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 2004 / Part III, ed. Richard BEADLE, Colin RICHMOND, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2005.

PISAN Christine de, Le Livre des Trois Vertus, ed. Charity C. WILLARD, Honoré Champion, Paris,
1989.

PIUS II, The Commentaries of Pius II, Books IX-XIII, trans. Florence A. GRAGG, Smith College
Studies in History, Northampton, 1951.

RILEY Henry T. (ed.), Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland with the Continuations by Peter of Blois
and anonymous writers, Bohn’s Antiquarian Library, London, 1854.

―, Registrum Abbatiae Johannis Whethamstede, abbatis monasterii Sancti Albani, 1, Longman, London,
1872.

Rotuli Parliamentorum; ut et Petitiones et Placita in Parliamento, vol.V-VI, London, 1783?.

ROUS John, Historia Regum Angliae, Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1980.

Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Report 5: House of Lords, HMSO, London, 1876.

SMITH George (ed.), The Coronation of Elizabeth Wydeville, Queen Consort of Edward IV, on May 26th,
1465: A Contemporary Account now first set forth from a XVth Century Manuscript, Gloucester Reprints,
Cliftonville, 1975.

SUTTON Anne, HAMMOND Peter W., The Coronation of Richard III: the extant documents, St Martin’s
Press, New York, 1988.

TEARLE Barbara (ed.), The Accounts of the Guild of the Holy Trinity, Luton 1526/7-1546/7, The Boydell
Press, Woodbridge, 2012.

THOMAS Arthur H., THORNLEY Isobel D. (ed.), The Great Chronicle of London, G.W. Jones, London,
1938.

THORNLEY Isobel D., England under the Yorkists, 1460-1485, Longman, London, 1921.

VERGIL Polydore. Three Books of Polydore Vergil’s English History, ed. Henry ELLIS, Camden Society,
London, 1844.

WAVRIN Jehan de, Anchiennes Cronicques d’Engleterre, II, Société de l’Histoire de France, Paris, 1859.

WRIGHT Thomas (ed.), The Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry, Early English Texts Society, Trübner
& Co., London, 1868.

111
 Manuscripts

An account of the interment of Queen Elizabeth Dowager of King Edward IV, London, British Library,
Arundel MS 26, ff. 29v-30.

Dictes and Sayinges of the Philosophers, London, Lambeth Palace MS 265.

Guild Book of the Worshipful Company of the London Skinner’s Fraternity of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary,
London, Guildhall Library, MS 31692.

Luton Guild Book, Luton, Wardown Museum and Art Gallery.

Rous Roll, London, British Library, Add MS 48976.

Salisbury Roll of Arms, London, British Library, Add MS 45133.

Talbot-Shrewsbury Book, London, British Library, Royal MS 15 E VI.

The Prayer Roll of Margaret of Anjou, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Jesus College MS 124.

Secondary Sources

ABADIA Marcela, “Representations of Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and

Derby”, in VIDES, 5, Oxford, 2017, 7-18.

ASHDOWN-HILL John, “‘Al ful of fresshe floures whyte and reede’: The Jewellery of Margaret of
York and Its Meaning”, The Ricardian, 15, 2005, 166-190.

BACKHOUSE Janet, “A further illuminated devotional book for the use of Lady Margaret
Beaufort”, in Reading Texts and Images: Essays on Medieval and Renaissance Art and Patronage in Honour of
Margaret M. Manion, ed. Bernard J. MUIR, University of Exeter Press, Exeter, 2002.

BALDWIN David, Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower, Alan Sutton, Stroud, 2002.

BANDEL Betty, “The English Chroniclers’ Attitudes toward Women,” in Journal of the History of Ideas
n°16, 1957, 113-18.

BARTLETT Robert, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to
the Reformation, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2013.

BÁRÁNY Attila., “Medieval Queens and Queenship: A Retrospective on Income and Power”, in
Annual of Medieval Studies at the Central European University, 19, ed. Judith RASSON, Marianne SÁGHY,
Budapest, 2013, 149-199.

BARNFIELD Marie, “Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and
Matrimony”, The Ricardian, 17, 2007, 84-98.

112
BUTCHER Russell, “Propaganda in the Prepared Parliamentary Speeches of 1455-1461”, in The
Ricardian, 14, 2004, 37-53.

CARPENTER Christine, The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the constitution in England, c. 1437-1509,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.

CASTOR Helen, She-Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth, Faber & Faber, London,
2010.

―, “Exception to the rule”, History Today, oct. 2010, 37-43.

CHAMBERLAYNE Joanna L., “Crowns and Virgins: Queenmaking during the Wars of the Roses”,
in Young Medieval Women, ed. Katherine J. LEWIS, Noel James MENUGE and Kim M. PHILLIPS,
Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1999, 47-68.

―, “Within the Queen’s Chambers: The Construction and Exercise of Queenship at the English
Court (1445-1503)”, paper presented at the IMC, Leeds, 1999.

CONNOR Meriel, “Brotherhood and Confraternity at Canterbury Cathedral Priory in the

Fifteenth Century: The Evidence of John Stone’s Chronicle”, in Archaeologia Cantiana, n°128, 2008,
143-164.

COSS Peter, The Lady in Medieval England, 1000-1500, Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, 1998.

CRAWFORD Anne, “The King’s Burden? – the Consequences of Royal Marriage in Fifteenth-
century England”, in Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces, in Later Medieval England, ed. Ralph A.
GRIFFITHS, Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1981, 33-56.

―, “The Piety of Late Medieval English Queens”, in The Church in Pre-Reformation Society: Essays in
Honour of F.R.H. Du Boulay, ed. Caroline M. BARRON, Christopher HARPER-BILL, The Boydell
Press, Woodbridge, 1985, 48-57.

―, “The Queen’s Council in the Middle Ages”, in The English historical Review, 116, n°468-469,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001, 1193-1211.

―, The Yorkists: The History of a Dynasty, Hambledon Continuum, London, 2007.

CROUZET-PAVAN Elisabeth, MAIRE-VIGUEUR Jean-Claude, Décapitées : Trois femmes dans l’Italie de

la Renaissance, Albin Michel, Paris, 2018.

DANBURY Elizabeth, “Images of English Queens in the Later Middle Ages”, The Historian, 46,
1995, 3-9.

DRIMMER Sonja, “Beyond Private Matter: A Prayer Roll for Queen Margaret of Anjou”, Gesta,
53, n°1, mars 2014, 95-120.

113
DUBOIS-NAYT Armel, SANTINELLI Emmanuelle, Femmes de pouvoir et pouvoir des femmes dans l'Occident
médiéval et moderne, Presses Universitaires de Valenciennes, Valenciennes, 2009.

DUFFY Eamon, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, c. 1400-1580, Yale University
Press, New Haven, 1992.
DUGGAN Anne J. (ed), Queens and Queenship in medieval Europe: Proceedings of a Conference held at King's
College London, April 1995, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 1997.

DUNN Diana, “Margaret of Anjou, Queen Consort of Henry VI: A Reassessment of her Role,
1445-1453” in Crown, Government and People in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Rowena E. ARCHER, Alan
Sutton, Stroud, 1995, 79-106.

EARENFIGHT Theresa, “Without the Persona of the Prince: Kings, Queens and the Idea of
Monarchy in Late Medieval Europe”, Gender & History, 19, n°1, April 2007, 1-21.

―, Queenship and Power: Queenship in medieval Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2013.

ERLER Mary C., KOWALESKI Maryanne (ed.), Women and Power in the Middle Ages, The University
of Georgia Press, Athens, 1988.

―, Gendering the Master Narrative: Women and Power in the Middle Ages, Cornell University Press,
London, 2003.

EVENDEN Elizabeth, Patents and Patronage: The Life and Career of John Day, Tudor Printer, Ashgate
Publishing, Aldershot, 2008.

FISHER Sally, “‘Margaret R’: Lady Margaret Beaufort’ Self-fashioning and Female Ambition”, in
Virtuous or Villainess? The Image of the Royal Mother from the Early Medieval to the Early Modern Era, ed.
Carey FLEINER, Elena WOODACRE, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2016, 151-172.

FORHAN Kate Langdon, The Political Theory of Christine de Pizan, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002.

FRADENBURG Louise Olga, Women and Sovereignty, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1992.

GAIRDNER James, Henry the Seventh, Macmillan, London 1889.

GAUDE-FERRAGU Murielle, La reine au Moyen-Âge. Le pouvoir au féminin : XIVe-XVe siècle, France,

Tallandier, Paris, 2014.

GIBBONS Rachel, “Medieval Queenship: An Overview”, in Reading Medieval Studies, 21, 1995, 97-
107.

GRANSDEN Antonia, Historical Writing in England II: c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century, Routledge,
London, 1998.

GREGORY Philippa, BALDWIN David, JONES Michael, The Women of the Cousins' War: The Duchess,
the Queen, and the King's Mother, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2011.

114
GRIFFITHS Ralph A., The Making of the Tudor Monarchy, Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1995.

―, “Succession and the royal dead in later medieval England”, in Making and breaking the rules:
succession in medieval Europe, c. 1000 – c. 1600, ed. Frédérique LACHAUD, Michael PENMAN, Brepols,
Turnhout, 2008, 97-109.

GRISTWOOD Sarah, Blood Sisters: The Women behind the Wars of the Roses, Harper Press, London,
2012.

GROSJEAN Alexandre, “Les rois d’Angleterre dans les chroniques de Jean Molinet, indiciaire
bourguignon (1474-1506)”, Le Moyen Âge, CXVIII, 2012/13, 523-544.

GUAY Manuel, “Du consentement à l’affectio maritalis : quatre mariages princiers (France-
Angleterre, 1395-1468)”, Revue historique, PUF, n°650, 2009/2, 291-319.

GUNN Steven J., Early Tudor Government, 1485-1558, Palgrave, London, 1995.

HARRIS Kate, “Patrons, Buyers and Owners: The Evidence for Ownership and the Rôle of Book
Owners in Book Production and the Book Trade”, in Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375-
1475, ed. Jeremy GRIFFITHS, Derek PEARSAL, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989,
163-199.

HARROD Henry, “Queen Elizabeth Woodville’s visit to Norwich in 1469”, Norfolk Archaeology, 5,
1859, 32-37.

HARVEY Nancy L., Elizabeth of York: The Mother of Henry VIII, Macmillan, New York, 1973.

HEAD Constance, “Pope Pius II and the Wars of the Roses.” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, vol. 8,
1970, 139-178.

HICKS Michael, “The Changing Role of the Wydevilles in Yorkist Politics to 1483”, in Patronage,
Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England, ed. Charles ROSS, Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1979, 61-86.

―, Anne Neville, Queen to Richard III, Tempus, Stroud, 2006.

―, The Wars of the Roses, Yale University Press, Yale, 2010.

HILTON Lisa, Queens Consort: England’s medieval queens, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2008.
HOOKHAM Mary Ann, The Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England; and her father René
‘the Good’, king of Sicily, Naples and Jerusalem. With Memoirs of the House of Anjou., Tinsley Brothers,
London, 1872.

HORROX Rosemary, Richard III: A Study of Service, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.

HOWELL Margaret, “Royal Women of England and France in the Mid-Thirteenth Century: A
Gendered Perspective”, in England and Europe in the Reign of Henry III (1216-1272), ed. Björn K.U.
WEILER, Ifor W. ROWLANDS, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002.

115
HUNEYCUTT Lois L., “Medieval Queenship”, in History Today, 39, n°6, juin 1989, 16-22.

―, “Intercession and High-Medieval Queen: The Esther Topos”, in Power of the Weak, ed. Jennifer
CARPENTER, Sally-Beth MACLEAN, University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1995, 126-146.

JAMES Norman, “The Yorkist Royal Family on the Bede Roll of the London Parish Clerks’
Fraternity”, The Ricardian, 15, 2005, 117-118.

JOHNSON Jacqueline, “Elizabeth of York: Mother of the Tudor Dynasty”, in The Rituals and Rhetoric
of Queenship, Medieval to Early Modern, ed. Liz. OAKLEY-BROWN, Louise J. WILKINSON, Four Courts
Press, Dublin, 2009, 47-58.

JONES Michael K., UNDERWOOD Malcolm G., The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of
Richmond and Derby, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.

JORDAN Erin L., Women, Power, and Religious Patronage in the Middle Ages, Palgrave Macmillan, New
York, 2006.

KAMP Hermann., “L’intercession dans les relations politiques du Moyen Âge classique”, in
L’intercession au Moyen Age à l’époque moderne, autour d’une pratique sociale, ed. Jean-Marie MOEGLIN,
Librairie Droz, Genève, 2004, 67-87.

KANTOROWICZ Ernst H., The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1957.

KEISER George R., “Patronage and Piety in Fifteenth-century England: Margaret, duchess of
Clarence, Symon Wynter and Beinecke MS 317”, in The Yale University Library Gazette, 60, n°1/2,
1985, 32-46.

KEKEWICH Margaret L., “Edward IV, William Caxton, and Literary Patronage in Yorkist
England”, in The Modern Language Review, 66, n°3, 1971, 481-487.

―, The Good King: René of Anjou and fifteenth-century Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, New-York, 2008.

KEMP Theresa D., “The ‘Knight of the Tower’ and the Queen in Sanctuary: Elizabeth Woodville’s
Use of Meaningful Silence and Absence”, in New Medieval Literatures, 4, 2001, 189-212.

KETTLE Andrew, “Parvenus in Politics: The Woodvilles, Edward IV and the baronage, 1464-
1469”, The Ricardian, 15, 2005, 66-86.

KIPLING Gordon, “London Pageants for Margaret of Anjou” in Medieval English Theatre, 4, 1982,
5-27.

―, Enter the King: Theatre, Liturgy, and Ritual in the Medieval Civic Triumph, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
2007.

116
KNOWLES Christine, “Caxton and His Two French Sources: The ‘Game and Playe of the Chesse’
and the Composite Manuscripts of the Two French Translations of the ‘Ludus Scaccorum’”, in
The Modern Language Review, 49, n°4, 1954, 417-423.

LABALME Patricia H., Beyond Their Sex: Learned Women of the European Past, New York University
Press, New York, 1984.

LANDER Jack R., Crown and Nobility, 1450-1509, Edward Arnold, London, 1976.

LAYNESMITH Joanna L., “Constructing Queenship at Coventry: Pageant and Politics at Margaret
of Anjou’s ‘Secret Harbour’”, in The Fifteenth Century III: Authority and Subversion, ed. Linda CLARK,
The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2003, 137-147.

―, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.

―, “Telling Tale of Adulterous Queens in medieval England: From Olympias of Macedonia to

Elizabeth Woodville”, in Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies on Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and
Medieval Worlds, ed. L. MITCHELL and C. MELVILLE, Brill, Leiden, 2013, 195-214.

―, Cecily Duchess of York, Bloomsbury, London, 2017.

LEE Patricia-Ann, “Margaret of Anjou and the Dark Side of Queenship”, Renaissance Quarterly, 39,
n°2, 1986, 183-217.

LELAND John, “Witchcraft and the Woodvilles: A Standard Medieval Smear?”, in Reputation and
Representation in Fifteenth-century Europe, ed. Douglas L. BIGGS, Sharon D. MICHALOVE, A. Compton
REEVES, Brill, Leiden, 2004, 267-288.

MAURER Helen, “Margaret of Anjou and the Loveday of 1458”, in Traditions and Transformations in
Late Medieval England, ed. Douglas L. BIGGS, Sharon D. MICHALOVE, A. Compton REEVES, Brill,
Leiden, 2002, 109-124.

―, “Deligitimizing Lancaster: The Yorkist Use of Gendered Propaganda During the Wars of the
Roses”, in Reputation and Representation in Fifteenth-century Europe, ed. Douglas L. BIGGS, Sharon D.
MICHALOVE, A. Compton REEVES, Brill, Leiden, 2004, 169-186.

―, Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England, Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2005.

MCCABE Richard A., “Ungainefull Arte”: Poetry, Patronage and Print in the Early Modern Era, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2016.

MCCASH June H., The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women, The University of Georgia Press,
Athens, 1996.

MEALE Carol M., “Patron, Buyers and Owners: Book Production and Social Status”, in Book
Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375-1475, ed. Jeremy GRIFFITHS, Derek PEARSALL, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1989, 201-238.

117
MUDAN FINN Kavita, “‘So Mutable is that Sexe’: Queen Elizabeth Woodville in Polydore Vergil’s
Anglica historia and Sir Thomas More’s History of King Richard III”, in The Rituals and Rhetoric of
Queenship, Medieval to Early Modern, ed. Liz OAKLEY-BROWN, Louise J. WILKINSON, Four Courts
Press, Dublin, 2009, 104-116.

―, The Last Plantagenet Consorts. Gender, Genre and Historiography, 1440-1627, Palgrave Macmillan,
New York, 2012.

MURRAY Jacqueline, “Thinking about Gender: The Diversity of Medieval Perspectives” in Power
of the Weak, ed. Jennifer CARPENTER, Sally-Beth MACLEAN, University of Illinois Press, Chicago,
1995, 1-26.

MUSSON Anthony, “Queenship, Lordship and Petitioning in Late Medieval England”, in Medieval
Petitions Grace and Grievances, ed. W. Mark ORMROD, Gwilym DODD, Anthony MUSSON, York
Medieval Press, York, 2009, 156-172.

O’CALLAGHAN John F., “The Many Roles of the Medieval Queen”, in, Queenship and Political Power
in Early Modern Spain, ed. Theresa EARENFIGHT, Ashgate, Burlington, 2005, 21–32.

OFFENSTADT Nicolas, “Les femmes et la paix à la fin du Moyen Âge : genre, discours, rites”, in Le
règlement des conflits au Moyen Âge, XXXIe Congrès de la S.H.M.E.S. (Angers, June 2000), Publications de
la Sorbonne, Paris, 2001, 317-333.

OKERLUND Arlene N., Elizabeth: England’s Slandered Queen, Tempus Publishing, Stroud, 2006.

―, Elizabeth of York, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2009.

OLIVA, Marilyn, “Patterns of Patronage to Female Monasteries in the Late Middle Ages”, in The
Religious Orders in Pre-Reformation England, ed. James G. CLARK, Boydell & Brewer, Woodbridge,
2002, 155-162.

OMAN Charles, Warwick the Kingmaker, Macmillan, London, 1891.

OSHEROW Michele, “Crafting Queens: Early Modern Readings of Esther”, in Queens and Power in
Medieval and Early Modern England, ed. Carole LEVIN, Robert BUCHOLZ, University of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln, 2009, 141-157.

PAGE William (ed.), A History of the County of London: Volume 1, London Within the Bars, Westminster and
Southwark, London, Victoria County History, 1909.

PARSONS John Cami, “Ritual and Symbol in the English Queenship to 1500”, in Women and
Sovereignty, ed. Louise Olga FRADENBURG, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1992, 60-77.

―, “Family, Sex and Power: The Rhythms of Medieval Queenship”, in Medieval Queenship, ed.
John Cami PARSONS, St Martin’s Press, New York, 1993, 1-11.

118
―, “Mothers, Daughters, Marriage, Power: Some Plantagenet Evidence, 1150-1500”, in Medieval
Queenship, ed. John Cami PARSONS, St Martin’s Press, New York, 1993, 63-78.

―, “Piety, Power and the Reputation of Two Thirteenth-Century English Queens”, in Queens,
Regents and Potentates, ed. Theresa M. VANN, Academia Press, Cambridge, 1993.

―, “The Queen’s Intercession in Thirteenth-Century England”, in Power of the Weak, ed. Jennifer
CARPENTER, Sally-Beth MACLEAN, University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1995, 147-177.

―, “‘Never a body buried in England with such solemnity and honour’: The Burials and
Posthumous Commemorations of English Queens to 1500”, in Queens and Queenship in medieval
Europe, ed. Anne J. DUGGAN, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 1997, 317-337.

PIGDGEON Lynda, “Antony Wydeville, Lord Scales and Earl Rivers: Family, Friends and Affinity,
Part 1”, in The Ricardian, 15, 2005, 1-19.

POLLARD Anthony J., The reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources, AMS Press, New York, 1967.

―, “Elizabeth Woodville and her historians”, in Traditions and Transformations in Late Medieval
England, Douglas L. BIGGS, Sharon D. MICHALOVE, A. Compton REEVES, Brill, Leiden, 2002,
145-158.

―, The Wars of the Roses, Macmillan Education, London, 1988 (2013).

POWELL Susan, “Lady Margaret Beaufort and her Books”, in The Library, 6th serie, XX, n°3, 1998,
197-240.

PROVOST William, “Elizabeth of York”, in Women in the Middle Ages: An Encyclopedia, I, ed. Nadia
MARGOLIS, Katharina M. WILSON, Westport, Greenwood Press, 2004, 307-309.

ROHR Zita E., BENZ Lisa. (ed.), Queenship, Gender and Reputation in the Medieval and Early Modern West,
1060-1600, Palgrave Macmillan, s.l., 2016.

ROSS Charles, Edward IV, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1974.

―, Richard III, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1981.

SALZMAN Louis Francis (ed.), A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely: Volume 2, Victoria
County History, London, 1948.

SCHUTTE Valerie, “Royal Tudor Women as Patrons and Curators”, in Early Modern Women: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, n°1, 2014, 79-87.

SEARLE William G., The History of the Queens' College of St. Margaret and St. Bernard in the University of
Cambridge, 2 vols., Deighton, Bell & Co., 1867.

SEWARD Desmond, The Wars of the Roses, Folio Society, London, 1995.

119
SHEARS Helen, “The Queen’s Blood: A Study of Family Ties during the Wars of the Roses”,
Summer Research, 16, 2010.

SMITH Lesley, TAYLOR Jane H.M. (ed.), Women, the Book and the Worldly: Selected Proceedings of the
St. Hilda’s Conference, 1993, 2, D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, 1995.

SMUTS R. Malcolm, GOUGH Melinda J., “Queens and the International Transmission of Political
Culture”, in The Court Historian, ed. Malcolm GOUGH, R. Malcolm SMUTS, 10, n°1, 2005, 1-13.

SPONSLER Claire, Drama and Resistance Bodies, Goods, and Theatricality in Late Medieval England,
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1997.

STANILAND Kay, “Royal Entry into the World”, in England in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Daniel
WILLIAMS, Boydell & Brewer, Woodbridge, 1987, 297-313.

STOCKER Margerita, “Apocryphal Entries: Judith and the Politics of Caxton’s Golden Legend”, in
Women, the Book and the Worldly: Selected Proceedings of the St. Hilda’s Conference, 1993, 2, ed. Lesley
SMITH, Jane H. M. TAYLOR, D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, 1995, 167-181.

STROHM Paul, Hochon’s Arrow: The Social imagination of Fourteenth-Century texts, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, 1992.

STUARD Susan M. (ed.), Women in Medieval History and Historiography, University of Pennsylvania
Press, Philadelphia, 1987.

SUMMIT Jennifer, “William Caxton, Margaret Beaufort, and the Romance of Female Patronage”,
in Women, the Book and the Worldly: Selected Proceedings of the St. Hilda’s Conference, 1993, 2, ed. Lesley
SMITH, Jane H. M. TAYLOR, D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, 1995, 151-165.

SUTTON Anne F., “The Death of Queen Anne Neville”, in Richard III: Crown and People, ed. James
PETRE, Richard III Society, 1985.

SUTTON Anne F., VISSER-FUCHS Livia, “‘A Most Benevolent Queen’: Queen Elizabeth
Woodville’s Reputation, her Piety and her Books”, in The Ricardian, 10, n°129, 1995, 214-262.

―, Richard III's books: ideals and reality in the life and library of a medieval prince, Alan Sutton, Stroud,
1997.

―, “The Device of Queen Elizabeth Woodville: A Gillyflower or Pink”, in The Ricardian, 11, 1997,
17-24.

TAYLOR Craig, “The Salic Law, French Queenship, and the Defence of Women in the Late
Middle Ages”, in French Historical Studies, 29, n°4, 2006, 543-564.

TWIGG John, A History of Queens’ College, Cambridge, 1448-1986, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge,
1987.

120
VANN Theresa M. (ed), Queens, Regents and Potentates, Academia Press, Cambridge, 1993.

WAGNER John A., Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses, ABC-CLIO, s.l., 2001

WALSH John, “Literary Patronage in Medieval England, 1350-1550, Library Review, 58, n°6, 2009,
451-460.

WANG Yu-Chiao, “Caxton’s Romances and Their Early Tudor Readers”, in Huntington Library
Quarterly, 67, n°2, 2004, 173-188.

WARNICKE Retha M., “The Lady Margaret, Countess of Richmond (d. 1509), as Seen by Bishop
Fisher and by Lord Morley”, in Moreana, XIX, 1982, 47-55.

―, “The Lady Margaret, Countess of Richmond: A Noblewoman of Independent Wealth and

Status”, in Fifteenth Century Studies, n°9, 1984, pp.215-248.

―, “Queenship: Politics and Gender in Tudor England”, in History Compass, 4, n°2, 2006, 203-
227.

WEBB Diana, “Queen and Patron”, in Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe: Proceedings of a
Conference Held at King's College London, April 1995, ed. Anne J. DUGGAN, The Boydell Press,
Woodbridge, 1997, 205-221.

WILSON Robert H., “Caxton’s Chess Book”, in Modern Language Notes, 62, n°2, 1977, 93-102.

WOOD Charles T., “The First Two Queens Elizabeth, 1464-1502’, in Women and Sovereignty, ed.
Louise Olga FRADENBURG, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1992, 121-131.

121