The Unity of the Roses: How the Marriage of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York Created the Foundation of the Tudor Political Identity
Following the turbulent War of the Roses, victorious Henry Tudor married the daughter of the enemy house: Elizabeth of York. The newly crowned Henry VII promised to unite the country following years of civil war starting with his marriage to Elizabeth. Though he sat on the throne, he still had to deal with pretenders to the throne and Yorkist uprisings. Unlike his wife who was the daughter, sister, and niece of previous kings, Henry had a dubious claim to the throne. On his mother’s side, he was merely the great-great-grandson of John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward III, through a bastard (later legitimized) line. Though his father’s half brother was the Lancastrian king Henry VI, Henry had no claim to the throne through his Tudor line. Elizabeth, despite seldom being involved in politics, provided both legitimacy to the new dynasty and much-needed support in the early, tumultuous, years of his reign. This thesis will address the question: How did the marriage of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII create a new Tudor political identity?
Comments
Well done, Lorenza! Always…
Well done, Lorenza! Always nice to see studies where women are not just treated as historical props, but that rather more fully investigate their often ignored roles. Do you foresee continuing research on other prominent female figures from the medieval and early modern periods? Or where do you think your studies will take you next?
Interesting work!
Hello,
I was thinking about the shared names between this Elizabeth and Elizabeth I - perhaps an intentional namesake? This led me to think about the famous rhetoric by Elizabeth I that she had "the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too." I had thought Elizabeth I innovated this differentiation between a woman's physical weakness and royal blood's undiminished, unsexed power. But your work highlights how critical royal blood, even in the female body, was already considered. What are your own thoughts about whether royal women of the time period you've studied could wield or leverage greater power compared to commoners of the same gender?
Thank you for your intriguing study!
Dr. Christine Muller (CURF)