Talk:Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales

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

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

Article policies

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

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

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

Middle Ages Low‑importance

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

English Royalty Mid‑importance

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

Military history: Biography / British / European C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

England Low‑importance

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

Untitled

On Edward's paternity: "His father was at the time suffering from mental illness, and there were widespread rumours that the prince was the result of an affair between his mother and some unnamed lover. However, there is no evidence for this, and Henry himself never doubted the boy's paternity." This sounds suspiciously POV to me. Henry was not exactly a perceptive or even sane man. Citing his belief in the boy's paternity as evidence of anything is rather inane. And on the lack of evidence: it's true that we have no record of the Queen's infidelity, but if she had had an affair, she was in the perfect situation to conceal it. She was a strong woman, both personally and politically, while her husband was almost her polar opposite in both regards, not to mention mentally ill.

Remember: Occam's Razor is a pragmatic tool. It's not a rule of the universe. We shouldn't always assume something is untrue just because there's no direct evidence, especially when the situation implies that it could very easily have happened in such a way that no evidence would come down to us.--71.37.11.245 (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be sure that the story that he was murdered after the battle is an invention? Should we treat him as "Cause of death disputed"? PatGallacher (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death in battle?

The issue of Edward's death, whether he was killed during or after the battle, or by Clarence or Gloucester, is contentious enough that it deserves citation in the article. Add a reference to Kendall or better yet to the primary source he presumably relies upon. I someone has an alternative account with as good references they can add them. --216.55.215.60 (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Truth. If anything, could you remove that last entry and add the real culprit: the Duke of Clarence. If necessary, I can provide the direct quote from Kendall's book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should refer you to a wealth of noted academics I study under; ones that publish the very books in which Wikipedians emerge with these arbitrary labels and misleading information. You answered everything with your first statement. His death followed the cataclysmic failure of Tewkesbury, he didn't die during combat. And this, love, can show many things. He could have been a grovelling coward and flew from the battlefield (as Murray posits), only to be apprehended by George, Duke of Clarence and killed by his men on the spot. The last entry on Edward of Westminster's page is grossly inaccurate, again placing undue blame on Richard III's lapel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Richard III has been blamed for nearly every death which occured in England in the latter half of the 15th century. I wonder if they'll be saying his reincarnated spirit was on the Grassy Knoll?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Paul Murray Kendall's fantastic biography on Richard III and it states that Edward wasn't killed in battle per se, but rather "formally beheaded" after found fleeing the battlefield (some hours later). Does this really constitute a death in battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While death in battle means exactly that: death while engaging in combat; historians, however often use the term slain in battle for those decapitated immediately after a battle by the victors such as in the case of Prince Edward, the many French nobles slain after the Battle of Agincourt, and the Bonvilles who were beheaded after the battles of Wakefield and St.Albans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A related issue: this article claims that Edward was the only Prince of Wales to die in battle. But Llywelyn the Last was killed in battle, and he was, of course, a prince of Wales. I would argue that that claim should therefore either be removed or qualified. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are using the term Prince of Wales in the English sense, and not prince of Wales as in Welsh princes. My objection is that Edward was not slain in battle as was Richard III at Bosworth, but afterwards; therefore, to be strictly accurate, the article should not state that Edward died in battle. Comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the intention was to use the term in its English sense, but Welsh princes of Wales are (or were) just as much princes of Wales as English princes of Wales are. So to say he was the only one to die in battle seems to me to be ignoring a large period of history. I guess I think it should just be qualified a bit. However, I agree with you that it's probably not strictly accurate to say that Edward was slain in battle anyway, so my point might be sort of moot. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced "Prince of Wales" with "heir apparent to the English throne". Does that solve the problem? Of course, he was not technically heir apparent at the moment of his death, but the right to the crown was contested and he was heir apparent before his death. Anyway, I believe that using "heir apparent to the English throne" is more accurate than using "Prince of Wales". Surtsicna (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Surtsicna, you solved that problem nicely. It looks fine. I wish all problems at Wikipedia could be so easily ironed out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what about Edward the Black Prince? He died in battle and was heir apparant to the throne, yes? Though he was not a Prince of Wales, he was still first in line for the throne when he died, leaving his son Richard II as next in line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.240.27 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the Black Prince did not die in battle. From his wiki entry: "The Black Prince returned to England in January 1371 and died a few years later after a long lasting illness that may have been cancer or multiple sclerosis." Lizbetann (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. The Black Prince died of a wasting illness after he returned to England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4th reation = 4th creation

When "4th reation" search is done this article comes up but when you search within the article it does not come up. It should read "4th Creation".```` 2603:8000:D300:3650:69A4:B3B5:F411:3412 (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed at Template:Princes of Wales family tree. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]