Talk:Edward IV

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward IV article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 90 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. [show]

March 4, 2005, March 4, 2006, March 4, 2007, March 4, 2008, March 4, 2009, March 4, 2010, March 4, 2016, March 4, 2020, April 28, 2021, and June 28, 2023

English Royalty Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Top-importance).

Middle Ages High‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / British / European / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

This article has previously been nominated to be moved.

Discussions:

No consensus, 3 September 2021, from Edward IV of England to Edward IV, see discussion.
No consensus, 5 November 2023, from Edward IV of England to Edward IV, see discussion.
Moved, 29 February 2024, from Edward IV of England to Edward IV, see discussion.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Why is Elizabeth I listed as his daughter?[edit]

This appears to be a protected emtry, so I can’t just jump in and delete the foolish line. 76.119.2.225 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She's not. That's a different Queen Elizabeth. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much less confusing if the infobox listed her under the article title as Elizabeth of York. Deb (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way she's been listed is consistent with how the other queens consort have been listed on their parents' info boxes. Keivan.f^Talk 11:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make it right. Deb (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that making it less confusing for the unwary should override strict consistency or uniformity in this matter. Mrmedley (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Henry VI Being Childless[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Untitled section[edit]

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[reply]

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)[reply]