Talk:Edward IV

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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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

Edward III of England renounced his claim to France. Would that make Edward IV of England I in France? The realm should be included in the info box. 80.187.100.184 (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is for real titles not pretend ones. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The text states that Edward’s father was short and dark, yet the accompanying drawing clearly shows him to have blond hair? 137.154.252.197 (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)