It is said that Elizabeth's pension, land, and expenses in York were very low, resulting in her often having to borrow money from others for a few pounds. Her personal wallet often only had a few pounds. Henry VII embezzled the land of the York family, and Elizabeth's sisters had no dowry and could only rely on the help of the queen. Henry VII gave Elizabeth very few gifts compared to other English kings, and how was Elizabeth's situation compared to other English queens and other countries? Is this true?
Wow, my first question ever! Thank you :)
Well, I need to tag @richmond-rex who's far more a Henry VII-Elizabeth of York expert than me, but I'll give my answer.
Elizabeth of York's finances were more than most of her predecessors a sensitive subject. Her marriage wasn't conventional as she was badly needed to legitimize her husband. Hence her treatment was to be even more sensitive than the treatment of a classic queen, usually of foreign origin. Perkin Warbeck and his entourage knew this, as he wrote in his manifesto alongside many grievances alleged mistreatment of his sisters, including Elizabeth.
Henry VII had a vested interest in having a queen capable of maintaining her rank because she was the bridge between him and the followers of Edward IV, who won't tolerate any perceived or actual mistreatment of their late ruler's daughter. Henry had a bumpy road in ensuring Elizabeth's funding as he inherited empty coffers from Richard III. Elizabeth Wydeville's early (or forced?) retirement in 1487 might have been a way to ensure her daughter's finances.
We don't have the greatest sources for late medieval times regarding finance, but we know that Elizabeth's holdings were significant. She did enjoy the traditional estates of English queens (around 10 000 marks), followed by numerous help and loans from her husband that weren't repaid. He also bought her numerous gifts (horses, jewellery, etc...). Elizabeth of York wasn't poor but she wasn't massively endowed either. We aren't sure whether there were moments of financial shortage for Elizabeth considering finance medieval bookkeeping mostly records spending way more than income. There could have been moments when her finances were strained and it's true that Elizabeth died in 1502, right when Tudor finances started to skyrocket. I do not know where you saw that EoY had less gifts from her husband compared to her predecessor. If you have a source, I'm interested! Otherwise, it's normal in medieval times to make small loans as people often didn't have cash immediately on hand and there could be short time of deficit. What we have about her finances and her patronage shows that she wasn't badly treated. As this issue is political, another proof is the reaction of the political community. Former Yorkists didn't complain about her treatment and didn't see her as mistreated, which is proof of good financial treatment. Her probable good relationship with her husband is another proof considering they wouldn't be so devoted toward each other if there were money issues. Recall that dysfunctional royal marriages impact their financial matters and vice-versa, from Isabel of France to Catherine of Aragon. I do not know how Elizabeth would compare to other queens, but she wasn't underfunded for her English predecessors and successors. She had more wealth than her mother, and slightly less advantages than Margaret of Anjou (who had tax franchises but was in a completely different situation) but more cash.
So my conclusion is that she wasn't financially mistreated and could maintain her rank. The idea that she was stems from Henry VII's rapacious reputation and accusations made by failed pretenders to separate Yorkist loyalists from Tudor rule.
Again, thanks for the question!
