#queenship tag

[wonder-worker]

Elizabeth Woodville and gender transgression, my beloved. Mancini writing that she was the one who truly ruled the kingdom ("the queen...attracted to her party many strangers and introduced them to court, so that they alone should manage the public and private businesses of the crown, surround the king, and have bands of trainers, give or sell offices, and finally rule the king himself."). The Titulus Regius framing her as an usurping monarch whose ascension destabilized England in ways that former parliaments had only ever framed kings. Edward V specifying that the peers of realm "and the queen" would run the government during his minority, only for Buckingham to single out Elizabeth and criticize her for surpassing gendered bounds of behaviour ("it is not in the business of women but men to govern kingdoms"). Richard III directly accusing her of using sorcery to bring about "the final destruction and disinherison of ... all ... men of honour". Her marriage to Edward IV being framed as incredibly subversive, with him being "too greatly influenced" and "rule[d]" by her; with Elizabeth (and her mother) being accused of using witchcraft to compel him to marry her and make her queen; with her queenship inherently disrupting the image of the patriarchal family structure, given how involved the Woodvilles were in court and in the lives of the royal children, far more than Edward's own relatives were. The fact that, beyond all this, Elizabeth possessed institutional authority in governance in ways that no other late medieval queen of England did, by her formal appointment in royal councils, which had in former reigns comprised only of "viros" (men).

While we don't and can't know how much of this was rhetoric and how much reflected reality, I think there are two things to keep in mind. First, Edward IV was never framed as passive or incapable to contrast him to Elizabeth; instead, sources explicitly emphasized both his ability and willingness to rule, making this narrative less of a "role-reversal" and more so the case of an active and capable king allowing himself to be subordinate to his wife. This differentiates it from the narratives used for other royal pairings. Second, beyond all potential rhetoric/propaganda, the fact of the matter is that Elizabeth did hold unique institutional authority for late medieval queens of England; this is not debatable but is instead an undeniable and intrinsic part of her queenship and should be recognized far, far more than it currently is. This entire topic is an unexplored goldmine.

[ednyfedfychan]

— Charles Beem, Queenship in Early Modern Europe

[richmond-rex]

That images of Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth Wydeville, Anne Neville and Elizabeth of York all feature crowns can be partially explained by the association of the Virgin Mary as the Queen of Heaven, an image that medieval queens were keen to emulate as it added to the notion of queenly authority. Marian devotion was a key aspect of late medieval piety, providing a further explanation for the connection. The association of Mary with queenship stemmed from her use of the crown of 12 stars, and the infuence that she had on queens and their appearance during this period can be seen across many spheres. For example, although many of the queens were not virgins at the time of their coronations, this did not prevent them from attempting to emulate Mary’s example by wearing their hair loose as a token gesture.

Nicola Tallis, All the Queen’s Jewels 1445-1548

This is confrmed in two contemporary images of Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Wydeville [...] Elizabeth Wydeville’s likeness was produced in the 1470s to mark her membership of the Skinners of London, and like Margaret’s image, she is shown dressed as the Virgin Mary wearing blue and red robes. The blue cloak in particular conveys the idea of Mary being the Mother of Mercy, and this is confirmed in the legend on the image which refers to ‘oure blissed Lady and Moder of Mercy’. 

[wonder-worker]

EMMA OF NORMANDY receiving the Encomium, in The Encomium of Queen Emma, c. 1050, British Library MS 33241 (Source)

"The Encomium demonstrates how central queenliness was to Emma's own self-image. The whole work is royal and queenly. The manuscript intended for Emma herself picked out royal names in half uncials, capitalized or highlighted them, and none more consistently than that of Emma herself. It opens with an illustration of her as a crowned, enthroned woman, with the author kneeling before her and her royal sons standing, slightly bowed, behind him. This is one of the earliest representations of a seated, majestic secular royal figure. It is an image of authoritative maternity but especially of regality. It is as queen, regina, that she is most often described in the Encomium, and her regal dignity is stressed at key points where it might be considered under- mined, as in her exile in Flanders. For the Encomium’s author and scribe Emma was always and overwhelmingly a queen. It is a common presentation of the king’s wife as patron, as in the chronicles which describe Emma and Edith in this role. It is the flattery of the commissioned author. But flattery works by playing to self-image. If this title summed up the author’s perceptions of a middle-aged king’s widow and mother who was his patron, his closeness to Emma suggests that it best reflected her preferred view of herself. In no other story is Emma as much the queen as in her own.

Her story is, however, no general praise poem. It is a specific justification and explanation of her actions geared to circumstances. Like the eleventh-century English chroniclers, or Henry of Huntingdon later, Emma too saw herself as a Norman-born wife and mother of Danish kings. She basked in the glory they reflected on her. Yet whilst the chroniclers telescoped her life and understood it through these identities, she used them to justify and explain it. Her apologia takes us closer to the problems which a woman’s several identities could pose: the tensions between her loyalties as a mother and wife, particularly to her sons by a first marriage after she has married again; the inadequacy of maternal ideals to provide a script for a woman faced with several children, especially by different husbands. Her self-presentation used the same identities, but more selectively than the Chroniclers; from what it omits and elides as well as from what it includes and emphasizes we learn what being a wife and mother meant in practice for a powerful woman.

The story she tells is not a whole-life narrative but a highly political one, appropriate to a particular stage. She chooses to present herself as the wife of a king, Cnut, not of kings, Ethelred and Cnut, and as a mother of all her sons. Emma’s is a Danish story, written in the reign of Harthacnut. It has no need to stress her first marriage, but nor could it have done. Emma’s story in 1041 had no place for Ethelred; it might have been different had it been written in 1043 during Edward’s reign, though not appreciably so. Family politics determined the dramatic events of 1035-40 in which Emma was so deeply involved and of which she has given us the most detailed surviving account. The family structures which produced them and the ideals available to discuss them were too much at odds to allow her case to be presented in other ways. Specific to circumstances as it is, it is Emma’s story as 1035-40 determined it should be told. This is not Emma’s narrative recollected in tranquillity on the eve of death, weighed, assessed and revalued when the end was apparent, but it is not clear that she could have told these years very differently even had she commissioned it then. The years 1035-40 might have figured less prominently. We might have heard more about Emma’s doings as queen, an identity of considerable importance to Emma herself. The set pieces about the much-loved queen, the hints of her sensitivity to queenly and royal dignity, and especially the equal share in rule which she stressed for herself as queen-wife of her husband and queen-mother of her sons might have been fleshed out with more details of the court politics and activities through which her queenship was exercised. That ‘might’ assumes an interest in and language to describe such exercise. The other eleventh-century stories, concerned with dramatic events rather than day-to-day politics, cast doubt on the existence of such a language. But Edith’s story suggests that it was being forged and was particularly appropriate to a queen."

— Pauline Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith: Queenship and Women's Power in Eleventh-Century England

[wonder-worker]

Elizabeth of York was successful in creating the perception of a popular and well-rounded queen consortship, the likes of which had not been seen in England since Philippa of Hainault, the consort of Edward III (r. 1327–1377), and would not be duplicated until the eighteenth-century queenships of Caroline of Ansbach and Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

— Charles Beem, Queenship in Early Modern Europe

Elizabeth was a native born daughter of a popular king, bringing considerable reserves of political capital as a dowry to her marriage, which, by all accounts, developed into a companionate and loving relationship. […] Henry VII quite visibly if not ostentatiously paid his queen the highest courtesy and respect. The description of how the king and queen comforted each other upon the death of their eldest son, Arthur, in 1502, as recorded by an anonymous court scribe, is a striking example of the positive press that the first Tudor king and queen enjoyed over the course of their marriage.

[wonder-worker]

"We can also observe social hierarchy at play in the gifts of food items made by and to Elizabeth of York as recorded in her expense account. Wine, for instance, was clearly a food gift redolent of high social status and considered the preserve of the highest social classes. That the mayor of London, Sir John Shaa, gave the queen gifts of Rhenish wine speaks volumes for his status and self-image. Rhenish wine was a most appropriate gift for the queen but it also spoke to the desire of the giver to render themselves worthy of a place in the upper echelons of society, if they were not already part of such exalted company. In the case of Sir John, it is, unfortunately, difficult to ascertain what, if any, specific motives lay behind his gift-giving, nor how effective those particular gifts were in advancing his interests with the queen. Similarly, Queen Elizabeth not only gave gifts of deer and venison, she also received several gifts of deer and wild boar, both items being highly prized and prestigious. Gifts of deer or wild boar, like wine, marked the giver’s high rank and elite status, or at least their aspirations in that direction. Deer parks were a visible aspect of the high material worth of an individual’s family and gifts of such game proclaimed the same. The main reason for this was that deer parks were commonly accessible only to the well-born and well-off, hence the high level of importance placed on presents of bucks and does. Such gifts were, therefore, not an everyday occurrence nor were they available to everyone. Yet the presents of venison and deer given by the queen do not always convey this sense of social exclusivity. The fact that Elizabeth regarded it as appropriate to present bucks to members of the king’s guard as well as her own stable staff suggests instead that the queen placed a high value on these household members and wished to convey her appreciation of their work. Social hierarchy may not have been strictly adhered to in these cases, but its subversion served to further relationships and affinities."

— Michele Seah (2024) "Gifts and Rewards: Exploring the Expenditure of Late Medieval English Queens", Journal of Medieval History, 50:5, 581-597, DOI: 10.1080/03044181.2024.2415637

[wonder-worker]

I wish Joan of Navarre was given more attention for being regent of England during Henry V’s reign the way Isabella of France and Philippa of Hainault are.

Hello! I think there's some confusion here – Joan of Navarre was never regent of England. Neither Henry IV nor Henry V ever appointed her as such, and there is no evidence she ever informally acted in any kind of capacity. From Elena Woodacre’s biography of Joan:

“In June, before Henry [V]’s departure, he formally bid Joan farewell and gave her leave to stay in several royal residences during his absence. He did not, however, entrust her with the governance of the realm—while later sixteenth-century chronicles claim this was the case, it is clear that Henry named his brother John, duke of Bedford, as lieutenant in the king’s absence.”

Likewise, neither Isabella of France nor Philippa of Hainault were officially appointed regents of England. Both of them did take on a leadership role to a certain extent in the king’s absence ("they aided the king and chancellor in the chancery; and they acted as part of the institution supporting the regent, who was often one of their sons", as per Lisa Benz), and it can be argued that Isabella acted as a quasi-king during Edward III’s minority. But neither of them had the formal positions or titular authority that their male contemporaries, including their infant sons, were readily given. This, beginning with Edward I, set a precedent which was then continued in the 15th century.

More broadly, after Eleanor of Provence in 1253-54, no queen was appointed as regent of England for over 250 years. It was only when Catherine of Aragon was appointed regent in 1513 (possibly inspired by the rule of her mother Isabella of Castile and the successful regency of Anne de Beaujeau in France) that this became an avenue for future queens once again. Nor were queens given any other kind of formal positions or titular authority for governance in late medieval England – the only exception to this was Elizabeth Woodville, who was appointed councillor for both her royal sons beginning from 1471.

I really think this institutional barrier should be recognized and highlighted more in studies of queenship, because formal and informal spheres of leadership were clearly something that mattered to contemporaries. The case of Margaret of Anjou, who was supported as de-facto leader during Henry VI's incapacity/absence but was denied any official positions for the same even though she herself initially asked for them, makes it clear that they were viewed as separate spheres and that one was evidently more acceptable than the other. This also helps dispel certain flawed narratives, like the idea of Catherine of Valois not being appointed regent after Henry V's death being a personal affront against her or a sign of a bad marriage when it was, in fact, simply following precedent. A gendered precedent, based on institutional sexism, but one which had been established long before Catherine and had virtually nothing to do with her as an individual. It affected almost all other late medieval queens the same way.

(For more about the decline in queens' formal participation in governance in medieval England, see these posts. For more about the formal/informal binary, and why it matters, see this post).

[wonder-worker]

“Elizabeth Woodville took up her predecessor's patronage at Queens' even before her coronation. […] The statutes ascribed to her the appropriate motivation that she was 'specially solicitous concerning those matters whereby the safety of souls and the public good were promoted, and poor scholars desirous of advancing themselves in knowledge of letters, are assisted in their need'. As was the case in the petitions for indulgences, Elizabeth chose to appear specifically as a benefactress to all subjects, in contrast to the more restricted courtly and clerical sphere […].”

— J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503