![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I removed this bit because it's not at all accurate - Prince of Wales isn't a title automatically inherited at birth, it has to be awarded. There certainly can't be two of them, by definition. Edward (V) may have been heir to the throne briefly while Edward of Westminster still claimed the title Prince of Wales, but then the throne itself was still in dispute at the time. sjorford →•← 12:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
To what land does the title 'Lord of EastShire' attain to? No other King/Queen of England seems to have such a title. Lenzar 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Recently the file File:King Edward V from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If this material about Lambert Simnel is encyclopedic, it would be better dealt with there than here. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should also include this. It might be an invention, but it also might be the true story about his disappearance. The nndb site states: "According to the narrative of Sir Thomas More, Sir Robert Brackenbury, the constable of the Tower, refused to obey Richard's command to put the young princes to death; but he complied with a warrant ordering him to give up his keys for one night to Sir James Tyrell, who had arranged for the assassination. Two men, Miles Forest and John Dighton, then smothered the youths under pillows while they were asleep. The murder was committed most probably in August or September 1483. Horace Walpole has attempted to cast doubts upon the murder of the princes, and Sir C. R. Markham has argued that the deed was committed by order of King Henry VII. Both these views, however, have been traversed by James Gairdner, and there seems little doubt that Sir Thomas Mores story is substantially correct." I'm not sure about this last statement but I still think this version of what happened should appear in the article. 82.154.83.186 ( talk) 01:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
List of English monarchs says he was born 2 November. This article says 4 November in the lede, and 2 November in the info box. Which is the correct date? -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have modified the Article's infobox to include the very salient possibility that Edward V together with his young brother was buried at Windsor with his parents. The 1789 discovery of a "secret vault" adjoining that of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville, and containing the coffins of two mysterious, unidentified children, is well documented. The tomb was resealed without the childrens' coffins being examined, as the authorities at the time assumed the remains to be those of George and Mary Plantagenet, two of Edward IV's other children, who were known to have been buried in the Chapel but whose graves were lost. However in 1817 their remains were discovered elsewhere in the Chapel. The 1789 discovery is mentioned in the Article, together with all the references. I have also amended the date of death, as there is no evidence to single out the given date (6 July 1483) beyond the fact that that was Richard III's coronation date. October 1483 is, and for many reasons always was, a more likely date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.207.211 ( talk) 00:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Somebody has edited the Article to say the likely date of Edward's death was 29 July 1483. However there is no evidence whatsoever for this date and the editor provides none. The same editor has also stated that the place of death was the Tower of London (in reality nobody knows) and the burial place to be Westminster Abbey; again nobody knows. This is not professional; certainly not to the standards of Wilkipedia. I have corrected the faults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.92.102 ( talk) 22:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Lady Jane Grey as an uncrowned Queen of England? -- Wetman ( talk) 12:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia ought not contain statements that Lady Jane Grey was legally, unambiguously, and without qualification, Queen, without some kind of footnote or "purported" or anything. See my addition to the Talk Page for Lady Jane Grey. 64.131.188.104 ( talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Could someone please clarify what is meant by the term "protectorate" as used in the section about his reign? It seems to indicate some higher form of regency for very young infants but when I look up "protectorate" the only 2 examples I can really find are protectorates in the international legal sense and the Protectorate Period of English history which has nothing to do with any regencies. 123.243.215.92 ( talk) 11:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The article stated that Edward V died in 1483, and had a category "1483 deaths" despite several RS stating that this is unclear, and the date is unknown. I(and others) removed anything that didn't have a WP:RS, and made it non-OR and non-NPOV. An editor User:Lugnuts made seven edits in less than 48 hours, restoring unsourced information. He/she then requested this article be protected, which it was with the unsourced information intact. Except it's semi-protected, and User:Lugnuts then made his/her eighth disruptive edit, adding a totally unsourced piece of nonsense, that actually contradicts various properly sourced statements in the article itself [1]! 41.133.0.152 ( talk) 15:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone has persistently added "1483" to the first paragraph, as well as the information box. And then added "1483 deaths" to categories. He/she has cited that some references in the article state this. However, more references state that the date is unknown. So, if some sources state one thing, while many others dispute this, how can Wikipedia use this one set of dates as definitive? I replaced these with a question mark, but one editor ruthlessly reinstated the POV/OR dates. Worse, the article was locked, and he/she then went further, adding the category "1483" deaths! Certainly the article needs to maintain a Neutral Point Of View, and using User:Lugnuts's edits is taking one side...the very definition of POV, and far from consensus, either on Wikipedia or with historians? A NPOV needs to be maintained, and therefore User:Lugnuts's one-sided POV edits must be undone, or Wikipedia becomes a propaganda tool. 41.132.179.212 ( talk) 04:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
←-------
History Lunatic ( talk) 07:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic
"Along with Edward VIII and Lady Jane Grey, Edward V is one of only three British monarchs never to have been crowned." Can't be true. There is few others too -- Tbonefin 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC).
So that has answered your question, King Hildebrand. Deaþe gecweald 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a more pressing issue is that he's referred to as a British Monarch. Britain didn't exist as anything more than a geographical concept in 1483.
- CharlieRCD —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative to removing uncrowned monarchs only of England from a "British" list, you could add all of the uncrowned monarchs of Scotland (before the U.K.) to the list. It would then include all uncrowned British monarchs. 64.131.188.104 ( talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
The part about uncrowned monarchs is problematic in that it places Edward V and Edward VIII, who though never crowned were both undoubtedly King for a time, with Matilda and Lady Jane Grey, who were never truly Queens. Most every textbook, and even the British monarchy website, simply lists Stephen as King from 1135-1154; simply because Matilda temporarily got the upper hand in the was known as the Anarchy does not mean she was truly queen. Additionally, Mary I is listed as succeeding Edward VI; once again, just because some tried to make her queen does not mean the nine days when they tried meant she was truly queen. To give these two ladies the same place in history as Edward V and Edward VIII, who were truly King and accepted as such, is simply misleading.
" Edward V .... who were truly King... " Edward V never reigned, ruled or had a coronation. His claim to the throne is doubtful. In fact, the only reason why he is listed is because of Tudor propaganda. 162.93.199.11 ( talk) 17:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
'On a technicality' - what about the "Kings of Mann"? Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"Edward V" seems to be something of an anomaly. Past and future de facto monarchs such as Louis(1216) and Jane Grey are generally not included in Lists of English monarchs. Furthermore, he never appears to have even been a de facto King. Likewise, the Titulus Regius declared that he had never actually been King. It is only the Tudor revisionism and styling Henry VIII's son "Edward VI" that meant there then had to have been an "Edward V". In addition even if Richard III did "usurp" the throne, why do we not then recognise Arthur I, Duke of Brittany as ever having been King? When Richard I died, Arthur WAS next in line, yet the crown went to John. The major difference is that when Edward IV died, the throne went to Richard because the so-called "Edward V" was illegitimate, AS A BILL PASSED BY PARLIAMENT CONFIRMED. Arthur was clearly legitimate. Yet Arthur is not listed as a Monarch but Edward IV's bastard son IS? And if he was legitimate, would it not be possible that he died before his brother, in which case his brother would be "Richard III", and Richard III be "Richard IV"? had Richard III's son survived, and Richard III won Bosworth, his son would certainly be styled "Edward V". Likewise, had the Yorkists won the Battle of Stoke, then Warwick would have become "Edward V" also. "King Edward V" is Tudor revisionist fiction. 137.158.152.213 ( talk) 11:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edward V of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
All sources attributing the deaths of the princes, seem to be based on rumour alone. Should this article and any discussions of the deaths of princes leave the identity of the murderer/s an open one? Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Now that Richard III's last resting place and mortal remains have been discovered, it would also be fitting to put an end to the speculation over the fate of the "Princes in the Tower" and the accusation that Richard had them murdered. An analysis of the "bones" of the princes found in Charles II's day, and a finding that they are not the bones, or that only one of them is (Edward V), could only help to restore the reputation of that much maligned King. Though this is not the place to discuss who was the murderer, I think the ruthlessness of such an act is more probably attributed to another King, Henry Tudor (i.e Henry VII) who had much more to gain than Richard by doing away with them. Henry's treatment of the pretender "Perkin Warbeck" has always puzzled me and could it be that Warbeck really was who he claimed to be? Were it possible to find some of Warbeck's bones and DNA test them the issue would be settled.
We have seen the history books rewritten once, is there a greater rewritting due? Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Michael Hicks. You got yourself some competition. Basket Feudalist 09:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Richard was a pussycat compared with Henry Tudor. If you want confirmation of what a sinister and creepy man he was, have a read of Thomas Penn's excellent book "Winter King - The Dawn of Tudor England". Ruthless? well par for the course with late medieval Kings, but at least he acted in the interests of the state. And at least Richard had a personality! Freedom1968 ( talk) 18:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I can confirm that it is definately worth the read, particulary if you are not already acquainted with the life of Henry VII! Freedom1968 ( talk) 22:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The only near comtemporary "evidence" of the killer is provided by Thomas More's suggestion that it was Sir James Tyrell wot done the dirty deed, But that seems too neat an explanation. Indeed it seems like another piece of nasty Tudor propaganda, something Shakespeare encouraged in his play.
No one knew what happened to the princes; those who did or might have were dead after 1485. The princes may have been dead by end of Richard's reign, but evidence of the length of time other important prisoners were kept in the Tower of London suggests they could have quite feasbibly and probably did remain there with very few people being given access.
Think "Basket" summing up of Thomas Penn's, not fair. It is a good piece of research worth credit.
Freedom1968 ( talk) 22:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Think we should bear in mind folks, that Dick 3's reign lasted for just over 2 years. That is a very short space of time to accomplish the "murder" of two young lads, kill one rival for the throne (Buckingham), prepare youself to fight off another one (Henry), and then get to grips with ruling a complicated state like England, is it not?
Not being able to show them later like Warwick, would not necessarily mean he had had them killed. Dick's problem was that having declared them illegit he was going to have to think up a "cunning plan" to re-legit them if he couldn't hump his lady wife Anne Neville enough to produce another heir. Sadly for him, she died before he had his chance and with everything else on his shoulders (no offence meant), he didn't have time to find another suitable lady to continue his line, unlike Edward IV who was clearly capable of shagging every woman in sight.
Knowing Ed IV's reputation for spreading it around and producing numerous "love children", you could fully understand that Uncle Dick might have harboured legit doubts that the two boys where in the same league. If he killed them, why did he not start exterminating the rest of the "love child" brood? After all one pretender is as good as the next?
"Basket" you think I am a scion of Uni of Essex? Ho ho ho, if only you knew the truth....! Re creepy Henry. Well Thom doesn't say that I admit, but it is an impression I get by reading about Henry. Each to their own. Freedom1968 ( talk) 23:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Bill the Cat 7 realise this is hard to believe from my delicate way of describing royal relationships, but I am quite a romantic actually! I think it is generally accepted that romance in those days was all about power politics and marrying the right bit of property! But it is true that Edward IV was a uncontrolled lothario, hence everybody's surprise (and outrage) when he got himself hitched to Elizabeth Woodville - and her grasping family.
Deb understand your points, which are quite fair. The one that bothers me is why Dick 3 didn't show the princes if they were still alive. I think the answer lies in the point you made about Warwick being shown by Henry VII to prove that the pretender Lambert was a phoney. Lambert was by all accounts a very unconvincing pretender and Henry VII probably realised that he was not taking any risks in showing that Warwick was still alive. Lambert of course ended his days as a kitchen boy in Henry's household, which says it all.
Warbeck on the other hand was a very different kettle of fish. Warbeck was a convincing pretender. If the princes were dead by then presenting Warbeck as an imposter should have been quite simple. But if one of them still lived then presenting Warbeck to prove this would have caused serious problems. Henry treated Warbeck quite well at first, but after an attempted escape put an end to him. Why treat him so well if he was just a common imposter? after all he humiliated Lambert? Was he perhaps as previously suggested a real illegit son of Ed IV or was he the real thing? If the former it was judicial murder, if the later it was not just murder but regicide! Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Freedom1968 ( talk) 08:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
RGC, I am going to put my hands up here. Re the Robinson programme you are indeed correct, it was Edward IV. I have a full plate of egg on my face and will eat lots of humble pie tonight! I can only claim in my self defence that not having seen the programme and only been told about it by a family member I assumed what I had heard was correct. I think the excitement of this debate temporarily dropped my guard over checking sources, which of course any good investigator should do!
That said I still think that Henry VII was spooked by Warbeck and that Warbeck's execution was not simply to get rid of Warwick as well. Shall we start a petition to get those old bones tested? Freedom1968 ( talk) 20:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way if you are interested there is another interesting mystery strand on the Edward II page about Edward IIs "death" Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been centuries since the deed was done, by whoever really done it. It's unlikely we'll ever know the truth and to say otherwise is assuming. For the sake of neutrality, to provide neither a Tudor nor a York bias, the best thing to say is that both Richard III and Henry VIi had the same motives. The princes stood in the way of either getting the throne. Henry VII could have been telling the truth or he may have wanted his predecessor demonised. We will simply never know the full truth, so just say it was in the interest of both sides the princes needed to die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:35A4:1900:A4FB:2536:E8ED:1774 ( talk) 23:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 ( talk) 17:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Here are some sources for Edward V reign ending 25 Jun 1483:
Jhood1 ( talk) 20:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Reference the image beneath the court of Edward IV, is there clear indication that the image of the boy is indeed crown prince Edward V? Might this be his brother, Richard of Shrewsbury? By sickly appearing features to a boy with regalia in hand "later," it would seem as if a changeling is murdered off by pre-industrial precept within the royal family. Already like circumstances to land upon Edward of Lancaster.
D. L. Ashliman points out in his essay 'Changelings' that changeling tales illustrate an aspect of family survival in pre-industrial Europe. A peasant family's subsistence frequently depended upon the productive labor of each member, and it was difficult to provide for a person who was a permanent drain on the family's scarce resources. "The fact that the changelings' ravenous appetite is so frequently mentioned indicates that the parents of these unfortunate children saw in their continuing existence a threat to the sustenance of the entire family. Changeling tales support other historical evidence in suggesting that infanticide was frequently the solution selected.
/info/en/?search=Changeling#Description
One is free to judge by the circumstance of biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.221.150 ( talk) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Attempt to read Early Life section of this article for yourself. Yours truly.
/info/en/?search=Edward_V_of_England#Early_life
"Simple charms, such as an inverted coat or open iron scissors or luminaries left where the child sleeps, were thought to ward them off; other measures included a constant watch over the child."
To understand that the goblins of French lore are a linguistic form of ghosts, the apparitions of the brothers, sons of Edward IV are said to recur in the Tower of London by knowledge of the history.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2549594/mum-claims-tower-of-london-snap-ghost-edward-v/
One facade which tends to appear assumed to be Edward V, if Richard of Shrewbury.
Would these two individuals beneath one persona even be the same person?
What is the very meaning of a stylized representation of an older boy bearing regalia? Merely appears a sickly specimen which falls beneath known descriptions of a sighted fairy changelings, need the image of a younger boy beneath a father's court contrast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.221.150 ( talk) 00:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
An edit was just made to insert the idea that velvet scraps were found with the 1674 bones now in the urn at Westminster Abbey. I looked for a citation of where this idea came into being since there were no velvet scraps noted in the urn in 1933. I keep coming across "unknown," " uncited, " and "anonmyous." The Richard III Society has the most thorough information:
'A third account from an unnamed writer who purports to be an eyewitness appears questionable. It was reported by Richard Davey in 1910:
The above was taken from http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/maurer_bones_part2.pdf
The essay goes on to say that if Davey can be taken at his word, the document was lost, neither Tanner not Wright could trace it, its language is suspect (teens?), and its facts contradict not only other contemporary reports but also contradict the known work going on at the Tower ("dug out of a stairway in the White Tower. ")
I could find no other references to velvet scraps, no mention is made of them being put in the urn - and as the essay points out, any such scraps would have surely been treated as holy relics - nor was any velvet found when the urn was opened in 1933. So I would classify this as single-anonmyous-source rumor, not as fact. Shall we remove it, or include it but report it as rumor unproven with the citation? History Lunatic ( talk) 07:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward IV of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there contemporary evidence that Richard had his brother declared illegitimate? From my understanding, this is more Tudor propaganda. Richard was devoted to his mother, and to declare her as cuckolding his father is rather unthinkable. -- Zoe
I don't think that replacing reasoned argument with non-NPOV stuff is going to help resolve the issue. -- Deb
"Richard's other brothers, Edmund and George, Duke of Clarence, had both died before Edward, leaving Richard next in line for the throne." This statement is only true if you also add that the Duke of Clarence's children were barred from the succession by their father's attainder. Historians are unclear on this (as was Richard III probably). The statement should probably be altered slightly to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.250.232.88 ( talk) 14:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I've changed this to the 9th, rather than the 11th, as the 9th is stated in the tables elsewhere in Wikipedia, and also seems to be the date favoured by historians. Since he was never crowned, and his succession had been premeditated, it makes sense to say that his reign began upon the death of Edward IV. The 9th April is by far the more commonly encountered figure, but I have added a proviso to the main article explaining the discrepancy.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I removed this bit because it's not at all accurate - Prince of Wales isn't a title automatically inherited at birth, it has to be awarded. There certainly can't be two of them, by definition. Edward (V) may have been heir to the throne briefly while Edward of Westminster still claimed the title Prince of Wales, but then the throne itself was still in dispute at the time. sjorford →•← 12:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
To what land does the title 'Lord of EastShire' attain to? No other King/Queen of England seems to have such a title. Lenzar 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Recently the file File:King Edward V from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If this material about Lambert Simnel is encyclopedic, it would be better dealt with there than here. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should also include this. It might be an invention, but it also might be the true story about his disappearance. The nndb site states: "According to the narrative of Sir Thomas More, Sir Robert Brackenbury, the constable of the Tower, refused to obey Richard's command to put the young princes to death; but he complied with a warrant ordering him to give up his keys for one night to Sir James Tyrell, who had arranged for the assassination. Two men, Miles Forest and John Dighton, then smothered the youths under pillows while they were asleep. The murder was committed most probably in August or September 1483. Horace Walpole has attempted to cast doubts upon the murder of the princes, and Sir C. R. Markham has argued that the deed was committed by order of King Henry VII. Both these views, however, have been traversed by James Gairdner, and there seems little doubt that Sir Thomas Mores story is substantially correct." I'm not sure about this last statement but I still think this version of what happened should appear in the article. 82.154.83.186 ( talk) 01:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
List of English monarchs says he was born 2 November. This article says 4 November in the lede, and 2 November in the info box. Which is the correct date? -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have modified the Article's infobox to include the very salient possibility that Edward V together with his young brother was buried at Windsor with his parents. The 1789 discovery of a "secret vault" adjoining that of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville, and containing the coffins of two mysterious, unidentified children, is well documented. The tomb was resealed without the childrens' coffins being examined, as the authorities at the time assumed the remains to be those of George and Mary Plantagenet, two of Edward IV's other children, who were known to have been buried in the Chapel but whose graves were lost. However in 1817 their remains were discovered elsewhere in the Chapel. The 1789 discovery is mentioned in the Article, together with all the references. I have also amended the date of death, as there is no evidence to single out the given date (6 July 1483) beyond the fact that that was Richard III's coronation date. October 1483 is, and for many reasons always was, a more likely date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.207.211 ( talk) 00:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Somebody has edited the Article to say the likely date of Edward's death was 29 July 1483. However there is no evidence whatsoever for this date and the editor provides none. The same editor has also stated that the place of death was the Tower of London (in reality nobody knows) and the burial place to be Westminster Abbey; again nobody knows. This is not professional; certainly not to the standards of Wilkipedia. I have corrected the faults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.92.102 ( talk) 22:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Lady Jane Grey as an uncrowned Queen of England? -- Wetman ( talk) 12:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia ought not contain statements that Lady Jane Grey was legally, unambiguously, and without qualification, Queen, without some kind of footnote or "purported" or anything. See my addition to the Talk Page for Lady Jane Grey. 64.131.188.104 ( talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Could someone please clarify what is meant by the term "protectorate" as used in the section about his reign? It seems to indicate some higher form of regency for very young infants but when I look up "protectorate" the only 2 examples I can really find are protectorates in the international legal sense and the Protectorate Period of English history which has nothing to do with any regencies. 123.243.215.92 ( talk) 11:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The article stated that Edward V died in 1483, and had a category "1483 deaths" despite several RS stating that this is unclear, and the date is unknown. I(and others) removed anything that didn't have a WP:RS, and made it non-OR and non-NPOV. An editor User:Lugnuts made seven edits in less than 48 hours, restoring unsourced information. He/she then requested this article be protected, which it was with the unsourced information intact. Except it's semi-protected, and User:Lugnuts then made his/her eighth disruptive edit, adding a totally unsourced piece of nonsense, that actually contradicts various properly sourced statements in the article itself [1]! 41.133.0.152 ( talk) 15:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone has persistently added "1483" to the first paragraph, as well as the information box. And then added "1483 deaths" to categories. He/she has cited that some references in the article state this. However, more references state that the date is unknown. So, if some sources state one thing, while many others dispute this, how can Wikipedia use this one set of dates as definitive? I replaced these with a question mark, but one editor ruthlessly reinstated the POV/OR dates. Worse, the article was locked, and he/she then went further, adding the category "1483" deaths! Certainly the article needs to maintain a Neutral Point Of View, and using User:Lugnuts's edits is taking one side...the very definition of POV, and far from consensus, either on Wikipedia or with historians? A NPOV needs to be maintained, and therefore User:Lugnuts's one-sided POV edits must be undone, or Wikipedia becomes a propaganda tool. 41.132.179.212 ( talk) 04:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
←-------
History Lunatic ( talk) 07:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic
"Along with Edward VIII and Lady Jane Grey, Edward V is one of only three British monarchs never to have been crowned." Can't be true. There is few others too -- Tbonefin 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC).
So that has answered your question, King Hildebrand. Deaþe gecweald 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a more pressing issue is that he's referred to as a British Monarch. Britain didn't exist as anything more than a geographical concept in 1483.
- CharlieRCD —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative to removing uncrowned monarchs only of England from a "British" list, you could add all of the uncrowned monarchs of Scotland (before the U.K.) to the list. It would then include all uncrowned British monarchs. 64.131.188.104 ( talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
The part about uncrowned monarchs is problematic in that it places Edward V and Edward VIII, who though never crowned were both undoubtedly King for a time, with Matilda and Lady Jane Grey, who were never truly Queens. Most every textbook, and even the British monarchy website, simply lists Stephen as King from 1135-1154; simply because Matilda temporarily got the upper hand in the was known as the Anarchy does not mean she was truly queen. Additionally, Mary I is listed as succeeding Edward VI; once again, just because some tried to make her queen does not mean the nine days when they tried meant she was truly queen. To give these two ladies the same place in history as Edward V and Edward VIII, who were truly King and accepted as such, is simply misleading.
" Edward V .... who were truly King... " Edward V never reigned, ruled or had a coronation. His claim to the throne is doubtful. In fact, the only reason why he is listed is because of Tudor propaganda. 162.93.199.11 ( talk) 17:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
'On a technicality' - what about the "Kings of Mann"? Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"Edward V" seems to be something of an anomaly. Past and future de facto monarchs such as Louis(1216) and Jane Grey are generally not included in Lists of English monarchs. Furthermore, he never appears to have even been a de facto King. Likewise, the Titulus Regius declared that he had never actually been King. It is only the Tudor revisionism and styling Henry VIII's son "Edward VI" that meant there then had to have been an "Edward V". In addition even if Richard III did "usurp" the throne, why do we not then recognise Arthur I, Duke of Brittany as ever having been King? When Richard I died, Arthur WAS next in line, yet the crown went to John. The major difference is that when Edward IV died, the throne went to Richard because the so-called "Edward V" was illegitimate, AS A BILL PASSED BY PARLIAMENT CONFIRMED. Arthur was clearly legitimate. Yet Arthur is not listed as a Monarch but Edward IV's bastard son IS? And if he was legitimate, would it not be possible that he died before his brother, in which case his brother would be "Richard III", and Richard III be "Richard IV"? had Richard III's son survived, and Richard III won Bosworth, his son would certainly be styled "Edward V". Likewise, had the Yorkists won the Battle of Stoke, then Warwick would have become "Edward V" also. "King Edward V" is Tudor revisionist fiction. 137.158.152.213 ( talk) 11:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edward V of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
All sources attributing the deaths of the princes, seem to be based on rumour alone. Should this article and any discussions of the deaths of princes leave the identity of the murderer/s an open one? Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Now that Richard III's last resting place and mortal remains have been discovered, it would also be fitting to put an end to the speculation over the fate of the "Princes in the Tower" and the accusation that Richard had them murdered. An analysis of the "bones" of the princes found in Charles II's day, and a finding that they are not the bones, or that only one of them is (Edward V), could only help to restore the reputation of that much maligned King. Though this is not the place to discuss who was the murderer, I think the ruthlessness of such an act is more probably attributed to another King, Henry Tudor (i.e Henry VII) who had much more to gain than Richard by doing away with them. Henry's treatment of the pretender "Perkin Warbeck" has always puzzled me and could it be that Warbeck really was who he claimed to be? Were it possible to find some of Warbeck's bones and DNA test them the issue would be settled.
We have seen the history books rewritten once, is there a greater rewritting due? Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Michael Hicks. You got yourself some competition. Basket Feudalist 09:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Richard was a pussycat compared with Henry Tudor. If you want confirmation of what a sinister and creepy man he was, have a read of Thomas Penn's excellent book "Winter King - The Dawn of Tudor England". Ruthless? well par for the course with late medieval Kings, but at least he acted in the interests of the state. And at least Richard had a personality! Freedom1968 ( talk) 18:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I can confirm that it is definately worth the read, particulary if you are not already acquainted with the life of Henry VII! Freedom1968 ( talk) 22:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The only near comtemporary "evidence" of the killer is provided by Thomas More's suggestion that it was Sir James Tyrell wot done the dirty deed, But that seems too neat an explanation. Indeed it seems like another piece of nasty Tudor propaganda, something Shakespeare encouraged in his play.
No one knew what happened to the princes; those who did or might have were dead after 1485. The princes may have been dead by end of Richard's reign, but evidence of the length of time other important prisoners were kept in the Tower of London suggests they could have quite feasbibly and probably did remain there with very few people being given access.
Think "Basket" summing up of Thomas Penn's, not fair. It is a good piece of research worth credit.
Freedom1968 ( talk) 22:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Think we should bear in mind folks, that Dick 3's reign lasted for just over 2 years. That is a very short space of time to accomplish the "murder" of two young lads, kill one rival for the throne (Buckingham), prepare youself to fight off another one (Henry), and then get to grips with ruling a complicated state like England, is it not?
Not being able to show them later like Warwick, would not necessarily mean he had had them killed. Dick's problem was that having declared them illegit he was going to have to think up a "cunning plan" to re-legit them if he couldn't hump his lady wife Anne Neville enough to produce another heir. Sadly for him, she died before he had his chance and with everything else on his shoulders (no offence meant), he didn't have time to find another suitable lady to continue his line, unlike Edward IV who was clearly capable of shagging every woman in sight.
Knowing Ed IV's reputation for spreading it around and producing numerous "love children", you could fully understand that Uncle Dick might have harboured legit doubts that the two boys where in the same league. If he killed them, why did he not start exterminating the rest of the "love child" brood? After all one pretender is as good as the next?
"Basket" you think I am a scion of Uni of Essex? Ho ho ho, if only you knew the truth....! Re creepy Henry. Well Thom doesn't say that I admit, but it is an impression I get by reading about Henry. Each to their own. Freedom1968 ( talk) 23:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Bill the Cat 7 realise this is hard to believe from my delicate way of describing royal relationships, but I am quite a romantic actually! I think it is generally accepted that romance in those days was all about power politics and marrying the right bit of property! But it is true that Edward IV was a uncontrolled lothario, hence everybody's surprise (and outrage) when he got himself hitched to Elizabeth Woodville - and her grasping family.
Deb understand your points, which are quite fair. The one that bothers me is why Dick 3 didn't show the princes if they were still alive. I think the answer lies in the point you made about Warwick being shown by Henry VII to prove that the pretender Lambert was a phoney. Lambert was by all accounts a very unconvincing pretender and Henry VII probably realised that he was not taking any risks in showing that Warwick was still alive. Lambert of course ended his days as a kitchen boy in Henry's household, which says it all.
Warbeck on the other hand was a very different kettle of fish. Warbeck was a convincing pretender. If the princes were dead by then presenting Warbeck as an imposter should have been quite simple. But if one of them still lived then presenting Warbeck to prove this would have caused serious problems. Henry treated Warbeck quite well at first, but after an attempted escape put an end to him. Why treat him so well if he was just a common imposter? after all he humiliated Lambert? Was he perhaps as previously suggested a real illegit son of Ed IV or was he the real thing? If the former it was judicial murder, if the later it was not just murder but regicide! Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Freedom1968 ( talk) 08:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
RGC, I am going to put my hands up here. Re the Robinson programme you are indeed correct, it was Edward IV. I have a full plate of egg on my face and will eat lots of humble pie tonight! I can only claim in my self defence that not having seen the programme and only been told about it by a family member I assumed what I had heard was correct. I think the excitement of this debate temporarily dropped my guard over checking sources, which of course any good investigator should do!
That said I still think that Henry VII was spooked by Warbeck and that Warbeck's execution was not simply to get rid of Warwick as well. Shall we start a petition to get those old bones tested? Freedom1968 ( talk) 20:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way if you are interested there is another interesting mystery strand on the Edward II page about Edward IIs "death" Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been centuries since the deed was done, by whoever really done it. It's unlikely we'll ever know the truth and to say otherwise is assuming. For the sake of neutrality, to provide neither a Tudor nor a York bias, the best thing to say is that both Richard III and Henry VIi had the same motives. The princes stood in the way of either getting the throne. Henry VII could have been telling the truth or he may have wanted his predecessor demonised. We will simply never know the full truth, so just say it was in the interest of both sides the princes needed to die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:35A4:1900:A4FB:2536:E8ED:1774 ( talk) 23:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 ( talk) 17:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Here are some sources for Edward V reign ending 25 Jun 1483:
Jhood1 ( talk) 20:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Reference the image beneath the court of Edward IV, is there clear indication that the image of the boy is indeed crown prince Edward V? Might this be his brother, Richard of Shrewsbury? By sickly appearing features to a boy with regalia in hand "later," it would seem as if a changeling is murdered off by pre-industrial precept within the royal family. Already like circumstances to land upon Edward of Lancaster.
D. L. Ashliman points out in his essay 'Changelings' that changeling tales illustrate an aspect of family survival in pre-industrial Europe. A peasant family's subsistence frequently depended upon the productive labor of each member, and it was difficult to provide for a person who was a permanent drain on the family's scarce resources. "The fact that the changelings' ravenous appetite is so frequently mentioned indicates that the parents of these unfortunate children saw in their continuing existence a threat to the sustenance of the entire family. Changeling tales support other historical evidence in suggesting that infanticide was frequently the solution selected.
/info/en/?search=Changeling#Description
One is free to judge by the circumstance of biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.221.150 ( talk) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Attempt to read Early Life section of this article for yourself. Yours truly.
/info/en/?search=Edward_V_of_England#Early_life
"Simple charms, such as an inverted coat or open iron scissors or luminaries left where the child sleeps, were thought to ward them off; other measures included a constant watch over the child."
To understand that the goblins of French lore are a linguistic form of ghosts, the apparitions of the brothers, sons of Edward IV are said to recur in the Tower of London by knowledge of the history.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2549594/mum-claims-tower-of-london-snap-ghost-edward-v/
One facade which tends to appear assumed to be Edward V, if Richard of Shrewbury.
Would these two individuals beneath one persona even be the same person?
What is the very meaning of a stylized representation of an older boy bearing regalia? Merely appears a sickly specimen which falls beneath known descriptions of a sighted fairy changelings, need the image of a younger boy beneath a father's court contrast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.221.150 ( talk) 00:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
An edit was just made to insert the idea that velvet scraps were found with the 1674 bones now in the urn at Westminster Abbey. I looked for a citation of where this idea came into being since there were no velvet scraps noted in the urn in 1933. I keep coming across "unknown," " uncited, " and "anonmyous." The Richard III Society has the most thorough information:
'A third account from an unnamed writer who purports to be an eyewitness appears questionable. It was reported by Richard Davey in 1910:
The above was taken from http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/maurer_bones_part2.pdf
The essay goes on to say that if Davey can be taken at his word, the document was lost, neither Tanner not Wright could trace it, its language is suspect (teens?), and its facts contradict not only other contemporary reports but also contradict the known work going on at the Tower ("dug out of a stairway in the White Tower. ")
I could find no other references to velvet scraps, no mention is made of them being put in the urn - and as the essay points out, any such scraps would have surely been treated as holy relics - nor was any velvet found when the urn was opened in 1933. So I would classify this as single-anonmyous-source rumor, not as fact. Shall we remove it, or include it but report it as rumor unproven with the citation? History Lunatic ( talk) 07:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward IV of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there contemporary evidence that Richard had his brother declared illegitimate? From my understanding, this is more Tudor propaganda. Richard was devoted to his mother, and to declare her as cuckolding his father is rather unthinkable. -- Zoe
I don't think that replacing reasoned argument with non-NPOV stuff is going to help resolve the issue. -- Deb
"Richard's other brothers, Edmund and George, Duke of Clarence, had both died before Edward, leaving Richard next in line for the throne." This statement is only true if you also add that the Duke of Clarence's children were barred from the succession by their father's attainder. Historians are unclear on this (as was Richard III probably). The statement should probably be altered slightly to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.250.232.88 ( talk) 14:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I've changed this to the 9th, rather than the 11th, as the 9th is stated in the tables elsewhere in Wikipedia, and also seems to be the date favoured by historians. Since he was never crowned, and his succession had been premeditated, it makes sense to say that his reign began upon the death of Edward IV. The 9th April is by far the more commonly encountered figure, but I have added a proviso to the main article explaining the discrepancy.