Talk:Elizabeth of York

Portrait

This painting also illustrates Catherine of Aragon! --Wetman 22:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No,you can see the York Rose. Catalina's symbol was the pomegrante. But is there any substantial evidence that she is the basis for the Queen card in playing decks; other than the resembalence?Savok 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the painting was swapped out somethime between these two comments.  :-) - PKM 20:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious "hack" or vandalism in the 2nd paragraph. The sentence "I love my mummy" needs to be removed.12.107.188.130 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I is the child of Henry VIII and Anne Boelyn, not Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. The link corresponding to "Elizabeth Tudor" in the section about her children leads to the wrong article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.250.115 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When was her Portrait changed? A few weeks ago it was her National Portrait Gallery portrait, but now it is a colored engraving from the 19th century; this seems like an inappropriate/a backwards step. Is there anyway to change it back to the NPG portrait? KatieTJF (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! I agree; with her death mask, tomb effigy, and near contemporary portraits all available, why in the world would one use a 19th century illustration based on an artist's imagination? Unfortunately, I don't know anything about editing images. History Lunatic (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

Great-great-great-grandmother of a English King

Wasn't Elizabeth a great-great grandmother of England's first Scottish King, King James I of England? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.157.52 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes she was. Because her daughter Margaret married James IV of Scotland and: Elizabeth of York - King Henry VII

                 |
          Margaret Tudor - James IV of Scotland
                         |
                   James V of Scotland - (Someone - I don't know)
                                      |
                                   Mary, Queen of Scots - (Someone - I don't know)
                                                       |
                                                    James VI of Scotland/James I of Scotland

--109.148.135.212 (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)RoyalFamPeep

Queen regnant?

Why didn't she become regent herself? She was an heir. Was it all done to personality? That she had no ambition to do this?--85.226.47.79 (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite simple: Henry Tudor conquered England by force and married her. He was King by conquest, not because anything gave him the right to it, certainly not his marriage. Deposuit (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Children who died under age of 5

Why are there articles on 3 of her children that died under the age of 5, especially Katherine Tudor (1503) who died within days and the article has nothing to do with her? -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Any resources on this coat of arms? The file is entitled "Coat of Arms of Catharine of Aragon". While 2 queen consorts might have similar COA, these 2 women would definitely not.

Also, many of the articles that include a COA include a description; possible here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.36.162 (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

daughter, sister, niece, wife...and MOTHER of monarchs

Hello. In the opening paragraph the page states, "Elizabeth of York was, during her lifetime, a daughter, sister, niece and wife of English monarchs..." All well and good, but was she not also a MOTHER of the English monarch Henry VIII as well? Pretty big omission to forget the 8th Henry in your royal lineup, (and no pun intended!) Thanks118.22.247.204 (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

She was, but not during her lifetime. She was also grandmother of three English monarchs, great-grandmother of an arguable English monarch, great-great-grandmother of another, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard III wanted her to marry Bishop Stillington's bastard?

This appears in the 2nd paragraph under the section "Niece of a King." I had not heard this particular factoid before and it seems like an incredible idea to me, possibly a hoax - yes, in Richard's eyes Elizabeth was a bastard, but a king's bastard and the eldest and I couldn't see her match to a bishop's bastard as the "gentle" marriage he had promised her mother - so I looked for a source.

I found it in Phillippe de Commines' Memoirs p64 but I don't know how to edit it into the article. I do think it's an important citation because I believe a lot of people (like me) will wonder if it's true. Well, that there is a contemporary source at least; Commines says on the previous page that Richard III would love to continue to receive the pension Edward IV had from the King of France but the King of France was too disgusted by Richard's behavior to even consider it - and we know this is not true.

Correction: This article says Richard wanted to marry her to Stillington's *son* but it does not specify bastard son. I checked on the vague possibility that Stillington might have been married and fathered a legitimate son before beginning his church career. I found no such record; in fact I did not find confirmed record of a son - but I found many sites that state he had an illegitimate daughter "and possibly had 3 illegitimate sons." I could not find a real source for this statement, just repeats across the web.

At any rate, will some kind editor please insert this citation? Many thanks. 69.42.36.11 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

Error?

'...Elizabeth of York and her family left Westminster Abbey and returned to court. It was rumoured that Richard III intended to marry her... Sir George Buck later stated to have uncovered a now lost letter from Elizabeth which indicated she was involved and willing.'

Marrying his own niece? That would surely have been classified as incest, even then. Valetude (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You'd be surprised what Papal dispensations were granted for royal marriages. One Hapsburg King of Spain married his niece, and at one point Henry VIII considered seeking dispensation to marry his legitimate daughter Mary to his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy to solve his enduring succession dilemna by a marriage of half-siblings! History Lunatic (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

Mysterious 8th child Edward

A new edit has added another son to Elizabeth of York's brood: Edward. I'm seeing this pop up often on the internet and in some books, but always with the same reference - Weir's Britain's Royal Families Genealogy. Unfortunately, Weir cites no reference for this child's existence in the book, does not know when or where he was born or died, and I have never found any mention of this child that does not trace back to Weir.

For all of her other children, we know when and where they were born, when and where they died, and where they are buried. All 3 of her children who died young (Elizabeth, Edmund, and Catherine) were buried in Westminster Abbey. Moreover, there is a near contemporary painting of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York's family in the Royal Collection (see it here: http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/images/HenryVIIfamily.jpg), and only 7 children are in the painting - even Catheine is represented though she only lived a few days - and the child that is missing is this Edward about which we have no information except Weir's list.

As is the case sometimes with genealogy, one mistake can get repeated all over the place until it seems truly fact from sheer repetition. It is easy to fall into. If anyone can provide another source that does not cite Weir, please cite it. If not, I will check back and undo it. History Lunatic (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

Removed edits concerning this supposed child. If anyone can find a contemporary source naming this child (not to be confused with the child Edmund Tudor, Duke of Someset), other historians mentioning this child who do not cite solely Weir, or Weir's source for listing this 8th child, please discuss them here before relisting Edward Tudor as the son of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII. History Lunatic (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

Shakespeare versus Tudor propaganda

Shakespeare wrote Richard III as his villain while it was politically his bread-and-butter. The Tudors were his patrons, not the Plantagenet family, whose heirs and kings were long dead.

Thomas More and his mentor had begun the "Richard slew his own nephews" myth. It was not an issue while Richard III was alive. (Feel free to check, even with the Richard III Society, or Josephine Tey.) Just don't use Shakespeare as your source. It'd be like listening to the pundits of any talk show.

I bring this up because the "Princes in the Tower" vanished after Richard III's death, oddly enough during Henry's reign. Not Richard's. Having this in Wikipedia is like using old encyclopedias instead of updated material: ignoring known historical facts in favor of oft-repeated bromides.

We aren't Shakespeare. The theaters won't get closed if we know things, or publish them either. 162.17.134.70 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)asz

It would be helpful to know what you think should be changed in this article. Shakespeare is not used as a source in this article, and is only mentioned in the pop culture section.

If you are looking at the passage in the opening section of this article...

"Her two brothers, the "Princes in the Tower" disappeared, presumably murdered by her uncle, Richard III of England, who also executed most of her male relations on her mother's side."

...then I agree that at the very least "presumably" should be removed, and possibly the rest of the sentence replaced with something like "Her two brothers, the "Princes in the Tower," disappeared and their fate remains a mystery," making this section more neutral in its stance.

The link is already there for anyone to read the extensive article on the Princes and the even more extensive Talk Page.

That said, there is no solid evidence of the boys' existence after the summer of 1483. This does not mean they could not have been alive when Henry VII took the throne, but it also means that Richard III cannot be ruled out as their murderer - if in fact they were murdered. But that is a discussion for the Princes' Talk page. 69.42.36.46 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic

"Richard III Society, or Josephine Tey" - really?! The passage reflects the consensus of serious modern historians, and also that of other Yorkists at the time, who you will notice deserted Richard in droves, including Elizabeth. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth of York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054034/http://www.richard111.com/house_of_york.htm to http://www.richard111.com/house_of_york.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Henry Tudor not encyclopedic

There seems to be many sources to support this section and that Elizabeth had a good relationship with Henry so I am confused as to why there is the warning that it is not reflecting the "encyclopedic tone" of the site. Is it because it about suppositions on a relationship? ZGMU (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There are sources cited, and there's no clear basis to disagree with the individual paragraphs, but I think that the cumulative effect of the section does tend to be rather one-sided in its message, leaving a non-encyclopedic warm and fuzzy impression. That might be less the case if more was included on the early years of the marriage and the rest of the material was cut down a bit. Sbishop (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Katherine

She died in February 1503, but the citations do not agree on the date. Some say 10, some say 18, one says circa 18. The simplest solution is to draft the text so that it covers all possibilities. "A few days" covers any date between 10 and 18. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sing a Song of Sixpence

This article states that the nursery rhyme Sing a Song of Sixpence depicts Elizabeth of York as the queen. The article on the rhyme states that the song's queen is traditionally thought to be Catherine of Aragon, and that the song's maid is Anne Boleyn. Is there any reference connecting Elizabeth to this song, instead of her two daughters-in-law? Dimadick (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it until a citation can be provided. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)