Talk:Edward V

Richard was only 'next in line for the throne' if qualifiers are added

"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.

Date of Accession

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.

CharlieRCD 22:58, 24 September 2007 (GMT)

Lack of quality scholarly material

Some peer reviewed research, rather than Rushton2010's heavy over-reliance on the BBC's website, would be encouraging. It might even lead to a marked improvement in the quality of the article rather than concentrating on the weird ramblings of Philippa Gregory.

Unfortunately, Rushton2010 has reverted my attempts to make a start on this. Any suggestions?31.54.9.127 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you were compiling a bibliography of sources on the subject of Edward V, what would you include? Nev1 (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I've put some suggestions on the Talk Page of the Princes in the Tower, as follows: 'I think more material should be incorporated from Desmond Seward (although I'm a little uncomfortable with some of his very partisan and in my view less than brilliantly sourced conclusions, particularly around the fates of Henry VI and Edward Prince of Wales) and Michael Hicks in particular, with good helpings from Horrox and Weir, not to mention Baldwin's book rather than his BBC article. There's also a fairly recent, more sympathetic biography of Richard by Carson that might be worth mining.' In particular, it is surprising that although Hicks' biography of Edward is mentioned in the bibliography, it is not referenced in the article. Admittedly, that is partly because there is a paucity of information on Edward and therefore it is almost a narrative of the political situation, but it should still be the key source rather than a throwaway line at the bottom.31.54.9.127 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is for the neutrality of the article and for wikipedia's policies; which I will continue to defend. You must realise how ridiculous it looks for a wikipedia article (not just this one) to claim to have "solved" a mystery which has remained unsolved for hundreds of years and which continues to provoke debate, books, documentaries and countless different theories. I'm very glad someone is looking to expand the article. It needs extra references: the disappearance section is the only one with proper referencing. I will look at the authors you suggest and see what can be added.
I would strongly recommend you (anon IP) read and respect wikipedia's policies. We all tear our hair out at some of them, but they must be followed. --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And on a lesser note.... you hilarious rambling that the article relies on Philipa Gregory; have you read the article? Clearly not seeing as her only mention is the Portrayals in Fiction section. "In the 2013 TV series The White Queen, an adaptation of Philippa Gregory's historical novel series The Cousins' War, Edward is played by Ashley Charles."

And thanks Nev for you offer to give me access to that source. I already have access to it and most of the other online subscription based sites: Jstor and such.
Thanks again though its appreciated. --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Rushton, I have read them and I am following them. I am using established secondary literature to improve the article. You, on the other hand, are using what amounts to a blog post on the BBC (see WP:RS) as a main source to promote a fringe theory here and on other pages, which I would remind you is entirely contrary to WP policies. Nowhere have I claimed, or tried to claim, that the matter has been 'solved', but the overwhelming historical consensus (which is what WP should reflect: see WP:TRUTH) is that Richard is by far the likeliest suspect and to put forward anyone else as a 'principal' suspect is therefore dubious. My recommendation would be for something along the lines of 'Richard III is the man most usually identified by historians as a possible murderer, but other theories have been advanced implicating (among others) Buckingham, Tyrell, Henry Tudor and Margaret Beaufort.' (I wouldn't personally bother with Beaufort, but since you won't have it any other way, I'm willing to compromise.) That would represent the historical consensus but the article as it stands does not. If that is acceptable to you, please make the change.

I would be extremely grateful, however, if you could investigate the literature more thoroughly and improve the article and indeed the one on the Princes in the Tower, because both undoubtedly need it. There is further suggested reading on the subject on the talk page there (including direct references to the historical consensus from other encyclopaedias) along with a critique of Baldwin's BBC post.

Can this article be updated a bit more related to the Missing Princes Project and Phillipa Langley's work, which found multiple documents proving that Edward V survived until at least 1487, and also found a 4-page diary from Richard of Shrewsbury? There's plenty of sources to pull from now, including a documentary and a book explaining the findings. 69.112.240.139 (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

The Princes in the Tower by Philippa Langley

This article is due for a substantial overall based on Langley's authoritative report on The Missing Princes Project. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Also compare this National Geographic article, published 20 November 2023, which includes a high resolution photograph of the document discovered in May 2020 at the archive of Lille in France (announced in November 2023) that proves that Edward V. was alive as of 16 December 1487 (sic). There is a second document, found in November 2020 at an archive in the Netherlands, similarly showing that his brother Richard was alive in 1493. The two documents are described in some more detail at thehistorypress.co.uk, under paragraphs "Discovery 3" and "Discovery 4", respectively, and on Langley's website, which gives more images of the other documents. I would imagine it is also discussed in Philippa Langley's book that is curiously already cited in the Wikipedia article about Richard, but leaving out what may be its most important conclusions. There is also an interview with the author by the Folger Shakespeare Library in which she gives some further details. Alongside a photograph, Langley's website gives the following summary of the 1493 four-page document (about Richard, not his brother Edward V.): It is a witness statement written in the first person and records Richard, Duke of York’s story from the point at which he left sanctuary in Westminster in London as a 9 year-old boy in 1483, to his arrival at the court of his aunt, Margaret of York, in Burgundy in 1493. The witness statement provides extensive detail. A full transcription of the text of that document is given in Appendix 5 of Langley's book. The 1487 document about Edward V. is transcribed in Appendix 2. As a citation for the 1493 document, one might use Nathalie Nijman-Bliekendaal, Research Report 21 November 2020: Gelders Archief, 0510 ‘Diverse Charters en Aanwinsten [Various Charters & Acquisitions]’, nr 1549: Verhandelingen over de lotgevallen van Richard van York, ca 1500 [Treatises on the fates of Richard of York c. 1500].

There are book reviews in The Times and other publications, but none that I could find are accessible without a subscription. While I am not ready to believe the full length of the conclusions that Langley draws, I think she generally is a credible source, having previously been involved in the successful search for the remains of Richard III. And the documentary evidence (found by other members of her research group) is probably hard to refute. We shouldn't give undue weight to it either, especially considering how new it is, but mentioning it is in order. Renerpho (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that parts of this had been added to the Wikipedia article by an IP user in November 2023. The edit was poorly formatted (but not unsourced), and it was reverted[1] rather than being improved upon, followed by protection for one year[2] to prevent further "vandalism". Renerpho (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Deb: It was you who protected the article. Do you think that needs to be kept in place? The protection seems to have been based on edits from a single IP that look constructive enough to me. I would kindly ask for the protection to be lifted. Renerpho (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This and all other articles relating to Richard III and/or the Princes in the Tower have been subject to the frequent addition of unsourced or poorly-sourced material, and as a result have been protected or semi-protected many times. Unfortunately, this material often comes from anonymous IPs - one-off users who've been reading the Daily Mail or Josephine Tey and taken these versions of the truth at face value. The supposed "new evidence" trumpeted by Philippa Langley herself, Channel 4 and her publishers really doesn't stand much scrutiny, but is intended to catch the eye of those who have a fleeting and superficial interest in history and like conspiracy theories. That's the reason these articles need protection until the fuss dies down. See the verdict from impartial sources such as this. I don't disagree that the article needs updating, and that the latest theory should be mentioned, but the job needs to be tackled by autoconfirmed users who understand the problems relating to the topic and how to comply with Wikipedia:NPOV. Deb (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Deb. Do you have an alternative to The Spectator that is available without a subscription? I cannot subscribe to them from my location, so I can't check what they say about it. The Princes in the Tower article mentions alternative theories, including Langley's. Maybe we can use that as a blueprint, although I suspect that article may need to be edited as well, if anything to include criticism of Langley's work. The Spectator article, for instance, is not mentioned there, and neither are any other of the "impartial sources" you talk about. Renerpho (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure that any reputable periodicals (other than National Geographic, which I can't view) have covered it in any depth, though no doubt they will when there's been time to assess the pros and cons. Reporters on local newspapers don't usually have much of a handle on topics like this and will just repeat whatever Channel 4 said. This, by a somewhat obscure but apparently reputable historian called David Pilling (not the journalist), probably would not be admissible because it's more or less a blog. Deb (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the blog. It's a pity how Channel 4 documentaries sometimes run with these revolutionary ideas. I remember a documentary about the origins of Syphilis (showing "clear evidence" that it was present in England in the 1300s, and in Ancient Greece as well), as if that turned 500 years of historical evidence on its head. The evidence presented isn't wrong, it's just misinterpreted. That appears to be the case here as well. National Geographics take Langley's theory at face value, by the way. That doesn't make it easier to judge its veracity! Renerpho (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

In an episode of the Gone Medieval podcast last year, Langley is being interviewed about these discoveries. She explains who determined that these documents are authentic, and how. If needed, I can link the episode number and the timestamps. Edit: The podcast episode is from November 16, 2023, titled "Princes in the Tower: New Evidence Revealed". The timestamp for the part where Langley explains who was involved in verifying the authenticity of the finds is 35:30. A book was also released with all the evidence found and detailed, called "The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Biggest Cold Case". Indiana Johns (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: the two articles you mentioned. You call the Spectator article "impartial", but the title is already super partial: "Of course Richard III killed the Princes in the Tower", then it proceeds to call Philippa Langley's discovery "nonsense" in just the third paragraph. I'm not sure how this can be considered impartial.

As for the interview with David Pilling, his main point is that it's more believable that the documents are totally authentic forgeries from the right time as these kinds of forgeries were "extremely common", as opposed to the documents being exactly what they say they are. He fails to elaborate that if these finds are so common, then why did it take a concerted effort in multiple countries and years of research to find two of them?

His tone just reminds of those grumpy historians who already scoffed at the idea that a laywoman would be able to find Richard III's body, and some of them actively tried to hinder her progress.

I'm all about being careful with new evidence, but so far all I've seen was subtle or not-so-subtle ragging on Langley. Indiana Johns (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant, as others recognise, that The Spectator is an impartial source, which has no vested interest in arguing either way, whereas Langley is bound to support her own theories. And I think you are saying that you are prepared to accept David Pilling's findings when they coincide with Langley's, but not when they don't. Deb (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Expanding on that "vested interest" train of thought, that would also make David Pilling more interested in arguing for the generally accepted stance of Richard III murdering his nephews, just like it was "better" to argue a bit over a decade ago that Richard III's body will not be found and that it was thrown into the river.

I'm not saying that Philippa's theory needs to be taken as gospel, I'm saying that the work she already put in along with the evidence she found needs to be mentioned, as it directly relates to Edward V. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to say that her theory is currently under scrutiny by the professional community. Indiana Johns (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 February 2024

• Edward V of England → Edward V
• Edward IV of England → Edward IV

Background: There was a recent RM which proposed to drop the "of England" from all of the English Edwards, which ended in no consensus. However, the closer explicitly stated a separate nomination limited to Edward IV and Edward V would be more fruitful, and might be the best next step to pursue. This is that discussion.

Rationale: per WP:SOVEREIGN, Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. Given that there are no other Edward IVs/Edward Vs, it is obvious that no disambiguation is needed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject English Royalty has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject England has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Middle Ages has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, logical, concise, common name and, on top of all that, their shortened titles already redirect to the two pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Inconsistent and unnecessary. Deb (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Britannica[3][4]. The 1st is indeed completely unambiguous and the 2nd only has a play named after the king so is effectively unambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Confusing. Edward of what? Dimadick (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I continue to support pre-emptive disambiguation. Also, this looks like systemic bias, far from obvious to non-English readers where they were king of. PatGallacher (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The recent changes to WP:SOVEREIGN have been steadily and consistently opposed across scores of RMs. They do not have actual community consensus and should be ignored. "Edward IV of England" is a superior title to "Edward IV" for the same basic reason that "Albert Einstein" is superior to "Einstein". Srnec (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SOVEREIGN. Sure, there are a number of vocal opponents to this change, but (with the exception of a couple of WP:TRAINWRECKs) the vast majority of the recent RMs have nonetheless concluded that there is consensus to drop "of country" when the monarch's name is unambiguous or is the primary topic. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support — per WP:SOVEREIGN - "most common, unambiguous name". Has brevity and conformity with Brittanica and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Bill Reid | (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is unrecognizable. V is not a surname. No indication that this refers to an English monarch. Walrasiad (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  We don't do that for non-monarch bios. We don't say Joe Biden (president) because someone might be unsure who Joe Biden is. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

We also don't call him "Joe 46". Joe Biden has a surname - "Biden" - which renders him recognizable. "V" is not a last name, it's a number. "Of England" serves as his de facto surname and makes him recognizable. Walrasiad (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Srnec. Sunak redirects to Rishi Sunak, and its meaning is clearly primary: do we move that too? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Edward the fifth what? Earl of Liverpool? Unhelpful to the WP:READER, to whom our Prime directive should be directed. ——Serial 16:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Didn't we just have an RM on these bios, mere months ago? GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per the policy on sovereigns and similar move outcomes. Some of the opposition is ridiculous, nobody will mistake him for the fifth Earl of Liverpool. Killuminator (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Otherwise known as hyperbole, to illustrate the paucity of logic behind the original nomination and the seriousness with which it should be treated. ——Serial 14:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • This is just an illustration of the bias behind proposals like this. Deb (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Being a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is "bias"? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Acting as though everyone outside England instinctively knows that Edward V means Edward V of England is certainly bias, even if you genuinely believe it. Deb (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

        There is only one person in history known as "Edward V". The suggestion that there is a serious risk of readers confusing the king (well known to history as one of the Princes in the Tower) with a little-known 20th century English member of the House of Lords, or that readers might be searching for the politician using the search term "Edward V", is ridiculous, and there's no bias involved in suggesting that the king is the primary topic. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCROY, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and similar to later monarchs such as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, etc. Векочел (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're not comparing Henry VIII and Elizabeth I to the eleven-week boy king? Really? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no benefit from trying to reduce the article title to as few words as possible, when the article title is already short. As has been pointed out, we don't use Einstein or Hitler because "it is obvious that no disambiguation is needed". The opening rationale is unpersuasive and the naming convention is largely defunct now that so many articles have now been moved to titles that are inconsistent with each other. When naming conventions lapse or become obsolete, they should be marked as such. The general article titling policy can be used instead. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)