Talk:Edward IV

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Henry VI Being Childless

It is stated that the claim to the throne by Edward IV, "… was strengthened in 1447, when York became heir to the childless King Henry VI on the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester." While true at that point in time, he eventually did have a son with Margaret of Anjou in 1453, Edward of Westminster, making Edward next in line. Atp-ptzu (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. He was childless in 1447. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Claims should be included only if there are reliable sources that state them. Our opinions WP:POV or research WP:OR are not relevant. —GoldRingChip 13:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: I do not understand. Are you suggesting that it is POV / OR to state that Henry VI was childless until his only son and heir was born in Oct 1453? ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5]). ——Serial 15:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think he's suggesting that you are expressing an opinion as to whether Edward of Westminster was the heir to the throne in 1453 (the Yorkists wouldn't have agreed), but it's not relevant anyway, as what is currently stated in the article is factually correct. Deb (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deb: Are you implying that I am User:Atp-ptzu, who made the original suggestion? GRC cannot be suggesting anything about me, as they have not replied to me. Or am IO merely confused by the indentation  ;) ——Serial 17:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I was merely confused by the indentation. And I wasn't expecting the question from you. Deb (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deb: apologies, I spelt 'I' 'IO' for some reason, I meant I could have been confused by the indentation, not you. To complicate tings further, it was only on the second post I realised that Firefox logged me out. Helpful, not. Cheers! ——Serial 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward V of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Untitled section

As for the text "The historical consensus is he and his brother Richard were killed, probably between July and September 1483; debate on who gave the orders, and why, continues, although their uncle Richard III was the beneficiary" which are in this article at the time I'm typing this, I would never state outright that Richard III was (or wasn't) the beneficiary. One possible scenario would be that since Richard III declared ALL of Edward IV's children illegitimate, he had no need to kill ANY of them, and so did not benefit from their deaths because his hold on the throne was no less secure with them alive (and illegitimate) than dead. A second possible scenario would be that since Richard III didn't kill any of Edward IV's DAUGHTERS, killing the SONS didn't secure the thrown to HIMSELF, but, rather, to the oldest daughter (whose line would be next in line after the line of the youngest son, under male-preference primogeniture), and that if he DID kill the sons he'd have killed the daughters too, indicating that Richard III didn't do away with the Tower Princes but Henry VII did, as Henry VII could well-afford to leave the daughters alive as he was married to the eldest and the throne would be secured to such children as he and his Queen Consort (or Regnant, to Yorkists) might create, regardless whether anyone traced Succession through Lancastrian or Yorkist lines. And a third possible scenario would be "Male-preference primogeniture wasn't in force yet, Matilda's ancient failed claim creating a precedent AGAINST female rule, and the daughters of Edward IV were not seen as being in the line of Succession, so by killing only the sons Richard III secured the throne to himself". Any of these three MIGHT be known to be true by a historian with more knowledge than I have. But if two of these scenarios can be dispensed with, then do so, by elaborating the evidence against them. You can't just say "Richard III was the only beneficiary" and make us obligated to take your word for it. If you have sound arguments that Henry VII doesn't benefit by the killings (in the absence of killing the daughters too), make those arguments instead of saying "Richard III was the beneficiary" without discussion or elaboration.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Copied from Talk:Edward IV of England because it was moved to the wrong spot by a page swap. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2024

In the Marriage and Children section, Edward V's date of birth is listed as 4 November 1470. The correct date is 2 November 1470. ClareWCull (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Erledigt Many thanks, ClareWCull. Happy editing! ——Serial Number 54129 13:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)