Talk:Edward V

Unprofessional Edits to the Article

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)

Protectorate?

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)

Untitled

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

Besides which, the old girl was still very much alive and would have had his guts for garters. But there are indications that was one of the stories Clarence was spreading to enhance his chance at the throne and, therefore, the reason their mother didn't hold his execution against Edward and Richard. But it was definitely the Tudor propagandists who said it in public and attributed it to Richard. -- isis 31 Aug 2002

Contemporary accounts of what was said vary. Mancini, who is often quoted by Richard's supporters, is one of those who said that Edward IV himself was declared illegitimate.

I don't think that replacing reasoned argument with non-NPOV stuff is going to help resolve the issue. --Deb

What issue? Nobody ever declared Edward IV illegitimate, so there is no evidence that anyone did. Edward's children were declared illegitimate, by Parliament, in Titulus Regius. Those are facts, and there's a huge difference between NPOV and revisionism. -- isis 31 Aug 2002

There is also no evidence of Edward IV's pre-contract. However, there is a big difference between listing all available evidence and selectively listing the bits you prefer to believe in. Even the Richard III Society website is more objective than the article as it stands. Deb

Yes, there was evidence of the precontract, namely, the Bishop's eye-witness testimony, and it was credible enough to convince Parliament. --isis 31 Aug 2002

Are we really going to descend to repeating all these tired old for-and-against-Richard III arguments? I did my best to make the article NPOV and objective. You have chosen to present only the evidence you find palatable. I can't be bothered to continue the debate --Deb

No one doubts you did your best, and no one doubts your intentions. This is just one of those cases where the consensus of the Wikipedian community went the other way. It happens. --isis 31 Aug 2002

I don't see anything NPOV about what's on the subject page. -- Zoe

Prince of Wales

(For a brief period after his birth and before he was officially given the title, he was one of two living Princes of Wales, the other being the only son of Henry VI of England, who was killed in May, 1471.)

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)

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.

Not crowned

"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).

...and they are...? --King Hildebrand 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Edgar Atheling was King of England for two months in 1066, but never crowned.
• Matilda was Lady of the English for a few months in 1141, but never crowned.

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)

EastShire

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)

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)

Uncrowned monarchs

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

But what about her DNA...? Basket _Feudalist 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh look, it's our new friend, editing from a different IP. I wonder how many other alter egos he has? Deb (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth

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)

Come on, guys. We cannot call ourselves a serious encyclopedia if we give him different birthdates in different places in the same article. I have no idea which is correct, but somebody must have some idea. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ...

I've changed the date in the lead ~ it now matches that of the info box. I chose that way because that's the date in the reference i currently have at hand, sitting next to my desk. Happy, Jack? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 06:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much, Lindsay. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

New file File:King Edward V from NPG.jpg

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)

Lambert Simnel

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 would definitely consider Smith's work to be encyclopaedic. The initial webpage I linked the reference to is of course just a webpage, but that in turn links to a full article from the Ricardian, which is a reputable journal (in fact I have a paper copy of the original). And Smith presents a very convincing analysis of the jumble of information available in the original sources, which casts serious doubt on both the real and claimed identities of Simnel. I admit that Smith's argument begins to struggle when it tries to suggest that the real identity of Simnel was actually Edward V, so I would definitely agree that the original mention of the Simnel connection needed a reword. However I do feel that the reasonable chance that he claimed to be Edward V deserves a dozen or so words, out of a thousand, in Edward's article. People can go on to read about Lambert Simnel, they can read Smith's article, and then make their own minds up. What do you (and anyone else who's interested!) think?

Lambert Simnel's page itself would indeed warrant a fuller discussion of Smith's thesis, but really that whole article needs to be overhauled, and I don't know where to start! Currently it presents a largely coherent narrative that simply isn't supported by the aforementioned jumble of primary information (accounts of Simnel are much murkier than those of Warbeck), all based on one non-academic source. Interestingly, I note that Smith's article is the sole reference for the material on Lambert Simnel on the German language Wikipedia, but unfortunately, I can't speak German!

Thank you for taking an interest in this otherwise rather neglected page, and I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts :)

Stephen 81.129.2.220 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thomas More Account of His Death

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)

Was he ever actually King?

"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)

Furthermore, if someone states that he was King(which he wasn't), then Titulus Regius would have to follow the precedent set by the Treaty of Lambeth which stated that Louis have never been the Rightful King, hence his actual de facto reign being erased. There is also the case of Edgar The Aetheling who was a King who even held Parliament, yet is not generally recognised due to the circumstances of his reign(which DID exist). or Matilda's reign not being recognised. Yet "Edward V"'s reign is recognised. Why? Simply because the next King Edward of England was made to style himself "Edward VI"? 137.158.152.213 (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources have to say. Where are your sources saying he wasn't king, or is this just something that belongs on a forum but not on this talk page? If there is a dispute among scholars, then ok, but otherwise... Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

He was King from 9th April 1483 until 25th June 1483, in that during that period no-one else in England claimed the throne. Edgar, Matilda, Arthur, Louis and Jane were all opposed by other claimants from the death of the previous monarch. RGCorris (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

But according to the current lede, Edward V's life could have ended as far back as April 1483. So, when was the last date he was definitely known to still be alive? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible burial in Windsor Chapel.

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)

Where is the evidence for attributing the death of the princes to Richard III?

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)

Unfortunately it seems that "Warbeck"'s last resting place was in a site that was extensively damaged in World War Two. Even if his bones could be identified and he was proved to be a nephew of Richard III by DNA analysis, that would still not prove that he was Richard of Shrewsbury - he could equally well have been an illegitimate son of Edward IV.

The only thing that is currently certain about the fate of the Princes is that they are not known to have been seen after the summer of 1483. Anything else is speculation, including whether they were murdered, and if so, on whose orders. Hopefully at some stage the bones in the Abbey can be re-analysed, although that may have to wait for a change of monarch RGCorris (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Hicks. You got yourself some competition.Basket _Feudalist 09:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"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". Talk about subjective! And Richard, not ruthless? Tell that to Hastings, Rivers and Richard Grey, all of whom ehe executed without trial. Deb (talk) 13:36, 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)

The whole issue here (and therfore why it does not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia) of so-called ruthlessness is completely subjective. Although, in terms of numbers, you are quite correct; Tudor and his son judicially murdered the remnants of an entire dynasty, for the same 'interests of the state'. It's true that no-one can pprove he did murder the lil' princes in the Taahr, but no-one can prove either that he did not, and this is not the place for proving a negative! Or otherwise of course. Good luck! Basket _Feudalist 18:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I've heard Thomas Penn speak and I've got the book. Henry was certainly a pragmatist, which is pretty much what Richard was. But if you have two suspects for a crime, one of whom was overseas when the victims "disappeared" and the other of whom was on the spot and had easy access to them and ultimate responsibility for their physical security, how can anyone possibly say that the former is "more probably" guilty? Deb (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pragmatism again when you're "editorial director at Penguin Books UK [and hold] a Ph.D. in medieval history from Clare College, Cambridge University, and writes for the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and the London Review of Books" etc etc, you can probably say whatever you fffffff'ing like!!! ("LOL", etc) Basket _Feudalist 19:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I just ordered Penn's book last week (on a whim) but it won't be available in the U.S. until March 12th or so. Can someone tell me if the book is worth reading or should I just donate it to the local library? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:23, 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)

I wasn't really reviewing the book (obviously, as I haven't read it), it was more a review of the author (A thoroughly nice bloke, but prone to sweeping visions of history). Basket _Feudalist 13:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The book got very good reviews and I was impressed with him when he spoke at CVHF last year. However, he certainly doesn't suggest that Henry Tudor was "creepy". What he does is to examine Henry's life in more detail and look at what made him tick, showing that he was a much more interesting character than is popularly imagined. Henry and Richard in fact had quite similar childhoods - Henry was fatherless and Richard's father died when he was quite young. Both spent some time in exile on the continent and didn't have a lot of contact with their mothers (who were both strong characters). Both had reason to be suspicious of other people's motives and to worry about their hold on the throne.

Good old Richard, what a nice man - didn't kill his nephews, just kept them locked up for years where no one could see them. His big mistake was not producing them after his own son died - that would have put paid to Henry's chances of popular support. Funny he never thought of it. Deb (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Henry VII kept Clarence's son Edward, Earl of Warwick (who, if the sons of Edward IV were either dead or illegitimate, was the rightful heir) locked up in the Tower for over a decade before executing him on a pretence so that his son's Spanish marriage could go ahead. I wonder how often during those years Warwick's continuing existence was confirmed by reliable historians ? RGCorris (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only time he was brought out of the Tower was in 1487, in order to prove that Lambert Simnel wasn't him. Your argument seems to be that, because Henry VII did some bad things, it was okay for Richard III to do bad things - yet Henry was a BAD person and Richard was a GOOD person. Have I summed that up correctly? Deb (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you're confusing what RGCorris has been saying with that of Freedom1968 (a scion of Essex University, perhaps?!). I think the point about Warwick's imprisonment RGC was making was the fact that when imprisoned, there were rarely records kept on them. The most common primary sources all of a sudden wouldn't apply; governemnt documents (wouldn't need to mention them), personal letters (possibly banned from sending or receiving them) and household accounts (well, you didn't have much of a household in the Tower!). And the only other common record of someone's life was so often their death- a record of their will being proven, or burial costs from somewhere. In other words- it is perfectly usual for there to be no positive record of a prisoner until his death. The question then, of course, is if the risoner didn't die- what record could have existed? Any I think that's what he means by 'existence confirmed by reliable historians'. Basket _Feudalist 13:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Deb suggested that R3 should have "produced" the Princes after the death of R3's son. My point is that, although there are no reliable reports of them being alive in the two years after the autumn of 1483, there may well be periods equally lengthy during Warwick's imprisonment when there were no reliable reports of him being alive. If, say, "Warbeck" had succeeded in overthrowing Henry VII and then arranged for Warwick to quietly vanish, blaming his death on Henry VII, would there have been any evidence to gainsay the story ? No-one knows what happened to Edward IV's sons - whereas Warwick's fate is known. RGCorris (talk) 13:18, 25 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)

Seriously? How long does it take to bump off a couple of children? About 5 minutes, I'd say. I'm not of course suggesting Richard carried out the murders personally; he may have specifically ordered it, or he may have done a "turbulent priest" act. Whatever the answer, he knew that there were rumours he had killed the princes, so why wouldn't he have shown them in public? The answer to the question of legitimising them is easy, as the precedent had been set with the Beauforts. Either Richard or Henry could have legitimised them in retrospect whilst specifically excluding them from the succession, but Richard also had the option of making them his heirs, which would have removed any reason for Elizabeth Woodville to support Henry. After all, he did make the Earl of Warwick his heir, and Warwick thus had a claim on the throne superior to Richard's own. Deb (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It is usually believed that Richard named his sister's son John, Earl of Lincoln, as his heir after the death of the Prince of Wales, not his brother's son, Edward, Earl of Warwick. RGCorris (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's true, there are conflicting reports of what happened after his son's death. Deb (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom1968 said, "...if he couldn't hump his lady wife Anne Neville enough to produce another heir." You're such a romantic.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this has turned into a "street cred" competition! Deb (talk) 15:25, 26 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)

If "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury, he may have arguably been the rightful King (although as the son of a bigamous marriage that could be questioned) but he was not actually a crowned monarch. Ergo his execution was not regicide, any more than was that of Edward Earl of Warwick (who was indisputably the rightful King in the direct line of male descent if "Warbeck" was an imposter or illegitimate). Both "Warbeck" and Warwick were the victims of Henry VII's desire for a Spanish marriage for his heir, and the reluctance of the Spanish monarchs to agree while the Tudor throne was still threatened by those with better claims. RGCorris (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

RGC,I personally doubt that Ed IV was bigamous. Most commentators think that Dick 3 made up the story of Ed IV's Marriage/legally binding promise to marry to Lady Butler, in order to justify his (Dick 3's) "usurption" of the crown. Certainly no contemporaries seem to think Ed IV's marriage to the delightful Elizabeth Woodwille was bigamous. It wasn't bigamy which upset them, what they were outraged at was that the Woodvilles were "commoners" hence they felt Ed IV was marrying below his station. In later times this would be called a "Morganatic Marriage". Such marriages meant that the children would not inherit their father's title i.e King. However whilst on the continent this was not unknown, in England it was, so this rule would not have applied.

On the question of Ed V not being a crowned monarch, this is not a problem. In the UK when one monarch dies the next takes over so there is no interregnum. The Crowning of a UK monarch is the formal assumption of their sacred status, but they are undeniably Monarch even before that. Ed VIII famously for instance was King even though he was never crowned, and nobody is going to suggest he wasn't are they?

Interestingly a couple of years ago Channel 4 produced a programme hosted by Tony Robinson of Time Team, which appeared to put doubt on the legitimacy of Ed V by producing evidence from a register in a French Catherdral (forget which one it was), showing that Ed V's baptism was not celebrated in the normal manner an heir would be. Working back from the date of the baptism they would able to calculate that Ed IV could not have conceived the child as he wasn't around at the time! Richard's baptism was recorded joyfully and followed by all the usual public celebrations. The conclusion? Ed V not legit and Richard was...

If that was the case, then Ed V was not the true kng but the younger brother Richard was. It is then easier to understand why the "pretender" Warbeck, was so much more dangerous to Henry VII. If Henry had been under the impression that both princes were dead or if he thought he had killed both the appearance of Warbeck would have been deeply probablmatic.

All that said, like many of the comentators, noone at of the end of the day really knows the sequence of events. A start could be made by testing the bones of the "princes" found in the tower in Chas II's day. But do we really want to know the truth, a good unsolved mystery can keep us all tapping away on our keyboards for life? Or should we all get a "life"?

Freedom1968 (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are confused - the Robinson programme questioned the legitimacy of Edward IV, on the grounds that his father Richard Duke of York was away on campaign at the time his wife Cicely conceived.

The evidence of the pre-contract with Lady Eleanor Butler, as witnessed by Bishop Stillington, was sufficient to convince people at the time, and certainly fits in with the character of Edward IV.

The Woodvilles were not commoners; Elizabeth's father was made an earl and a Knight of the Garter and her mother was the widow of the king's brother and the daughter of a French count. They could, perhaps, be seen as nouveau riche, although no more so than the Tudors. RGCorris (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so many questions we will never know the answers to. I believe many historians agree that Warbeck was "planted" in the Tower (rather than being executed straight away) as a way of getting Warwick to participate in a treasonous plot that would give Henry an excuse to get rid of both of them whilst preserving an appearance of leniency. It would be interesting to find out who the bones found in the Tower belonged to, but, even if they were found to be those of the princes, it would hardly prove who killed them. I tend to think it would point the finger at Richard (or at least at them having been murdered soon after they went into the Tower) because, if they just died of natural causes, they would have done so at different times and would probably not have been buried together. As far as "rightful" monarchs go, though, you can go back a lot further (or come closer to the present day) and find plenty of examples of doubtful antecendents that would threaten the present Queen's rightful tenure of the throne. The fact that Henry Tudor had no good claim to the throne is why he claimed it by right of conquest, thus hoping to make such arguments irrelevant. (Evidently this didn't work!) Deb (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify - "commoners" in terms of the English royal family does not mean people without a title, it means people who aren't members of the royal family. Thus Diana, Princess of Wales, was a commoner before her marriage, even though she had a title. And of course, there is no surviving evidence for the pre-contract with Eleanor Butler, nor any evidence that people were convinced by the testimony of the anonymous priest believed to be Stillington. Deb (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Woodville was a direct descendant of King John (which might explain a lot ;-) RGCorris (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know quite a few people who can prove they are descended from various monarchs! :-) Unfortunately all the ones I know are commoners - so much for any hopes of using my influence. Certain members of the Woodville family were elevated to the nobility, but Elizabeth remained a commoner until she married Edward. Deb (talk) 19:26, 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)

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.