Would you imagine that there'd be a lot of resentment by Elizabeth toward her husband? It can't be denied that he limited her role as consort to a mere figurehead and kept her financially dependent on him (I take it as a wise move on Henry's part for that way she'd be short of cash to fund the rebels against him). He allowed his mother to virtually usurp her rightful consort powers. They muzzled her for it's a fact that people preferred her side of the family.
I think this has already been talked about by tumblr over and over again.
There is little evidence of what Elizabeth felt about anything, and the few evidences we have suggests that she supported her husband and the inheritance of her children and her own position.
Many of us who like Henry, do not deny his faults, that he was dick with money, is a fact, but Elizabeth was far from poor, had a comfortable life not to say luxurious.
The Spanish ambassador himself said that there was no place where the queens lived more luxuriously than the queens of England after a visit (I know that people tend to take only what interests them from the accounts of the ambassadors, but unlike others It was not a mere impression but an observation about something concrete that he can see).
The fact that people preferred Yorks is something that fiction exaggerates, a lot, if was a popular York, was Elizabeth and we do not deny that Henry was never popular or even loved, and I doubt this was to much important to him as long as he kept his throne, he was too pragmatic for this, as well as I doubt that the people cared who was on the throne, since provided stability and peace. And the fact that the York family was practically destroyed from inside. The York preference is something created or a least exaggerated by fiction, although I think that Edward IV was popular.
In addition, the popularity of Elizabeth was greatly beneficial to Henry and his dynasty, so it is a victory for Henry.
The idea that Elizabeth was going to raise an army against her husband and consequently against her own children is ridiculous. She was celebrated for being the perfect queen and dedicated herself to her role and her family, I doubt that anyone of medieval times would like or approve a wife, even more a queen, to try to destroy her own husband and consequently their own children and her life as queen, since she would never be accepted as queen in her own right.
The claim that Margaret ‘usurped’ Elizabeth’s queenly consort powers is equally unfounded. It is clear that she was the first lady in the court after Elizabeth, but again, it is not as if a queen consort had so much power, beyond the limits of her own function, which Elizabeth has always fully exercised.
Elizabeth worked very hard on her family, in what we can infer about how much she fought for the marriage of Arthur and Catherine, the education of her other children, or her reaction to the death of her son Arthur, in which she readily decided to have Another son risking his own life for his family, does not seem like someone who wanted to raise an army against his husband, right?
And considering how much the Elizabeth’s death affected Henry and his reign, we can say that she exercised a beneficial influence and was well loved by all, including, God forbid, by her husband.
All the queens were financially dependent on their husbands, it’s a fact, there’s nothing strange about it.
Other more dedicated people than me, have answered similar questions much better, but I hope that my answer was, if not enlightening, at least helped to unravel these myths created or at least exaggerated by the fiction, since everything in the Life is not simply white and black, good or evil, right or wrong.
