Talk:Edward IV of England

Move discussion in progress
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 00:17, 10 September 2021 (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)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward V of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not about a move
If this article is move, I guess this comment of mine will go with it. As for the text "The historical consensus is he and his brother Richard were killed, probably between July and September 1483; debate on who gave the orders, and why, continues, although their uncle Richard III was the beneficiary" which are in this article at the time I'm typing this, I would never state outright that Richard III was (or wasn't) the beneficiary. One possible scenario would be that since Richard III declared ALL of Edward IV's children illegitimate, he had no need to kill ANY of them, and so did not benefit from their deaths because his hold on the throne was no less secure with them alive (and illegitimate) than dead. A second possible scenario would be that since Richard III didn't kill any of Edward IV's DAUGHTERS, killing the SONS didn't secure the thrown to HIMSELF, but, rather, to the oldest daughter (whose line would be next in line after the line of the youngest son, under male-preference primogeniture), and that if he DID kill the sons he'd have killed the daughters too, indicating that Richard III didn't do away with the Tower Princes but Henry VII did, as Henry VII could well-afford to leave the daughters alive as he was married to the eldest and the throne would be secured to such children as he and his Queen Consort (or Regnant, to Yorkists) might create, regardless whether anyone traced Succession through Lancastrian or Yorkist lines. And a third possible scenario would be "Male-preference primogeniture wasn't in force yet, Matilda's ancient failed claim creating a precedent AGAINST female rule, and the daughters of Edward IV were not seen as being in the line of Succession, so by killing only the sons Richard III secured the throne to himself". Any of these three MIGHT be known to be true by a historian with more knowledge than I have. But if two of these scenarios can be dispensed with, then do so, by elaborating the evidence against them. You can't just say "Richard III was the only beneficiary" and make us obligated to take your word for it. If you have sound arguments that Henry VII doesn't benefit by the killings (in the absence of killing the daughters too), make those arguments instead of saying "Richard III was the beneficiary" without discussion or elaboration.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
 * Copied to Talk:Edward IV. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)