GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2011-05 > 1305682107


From: David Daniell <>
Subject: Re: Marriage of Elizabeth (Woodville) Grey and Edward IV (about 1464)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 13:28:27 +1200
References: <mailman.5.1305653411.27500.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><2712a0f3-3e52-4ab2-961f-96a09faca0ae@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <2712a0f3-3e52-4ab2-961f-96a09faca0ae@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>


The ODNB says she was born at Westminster, 11 February 1466.
One of the many sources listed by ODNB author Rosemary Horrox is:
· N. H. Nicolas, ed., Privy purse expenses of Elizabeth of York: wardrobe accounts of Edward the Fourth (1830) ·
but without saying which information comes from which source.

David

On 18/05/2011, at 11:26 AM, Brad Verity wrote:

> On May 17, 10:29 am, wrote:
>
>> Elizabeth of York was born to her on 11 Feb 1464/5,
>
> Wikipedia says her birthdate was 11 February 1466. Nicholas Harris
> Nicolas, in 'The Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York' (1830),
> says she was born 11 February 1463-4, with the following footnote:
> "Sandford says she was born on the 11th of February,1466, but as
> thirty-seven persons were relieved at her Maunday in 1507, and as she
> is said on her monument to have completed her thirty-eighth year at
> her decease, the date in the text must be correct."
>
> The M.I. could have been inscribed at a much later date and be
> incorrect. I don't know why Maundy Tuesday charity was still going on
> in the Queen's name in 1507, four years after her death, but the math
> for that doesn't add up in any case.
>
> So this is another royal birthdate that is full of discrepancy. What
> birthdate does ODNB give her, I wonder?
>
>> probably when dear old
>> Jacquetta came storming in to announce that the king has got her daughter in
>> the family way, Isabella Widville now in her fourth month could no longer
>> hide her roundness....
>
> Elizabeth Woodville was crowned on Ascension Day (26 May) 1465. A
> pregnant queen could not be crowned, but that doesn't really help
> determine her first child's birthdate, since it could still fall
> either way, February 1465, or February 1466. But a read through the
> chronicles could determine which came first, her coronation or her
> daughter.
>
>> The condom broke and the history of the planet took a swerve.
>
> Globalization hadn't occurred yet in the fifteenth century, but, yes,
> the history of England, at least, did take a turn. This was commented
> on at the time by poets and chroniclers. One used the phrase "Now see
> what Love can do" (or something similar) when describing this
> particular turn of events.
>
> Cheers, -----Brad
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message



This thread: