Talk:Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick

Category:Heirs to the English throne
Should Edward be in Category:Heirs to the English throne as he currently is? The idea that he was named as Richard's heir is, as the article notes, disputed by several historians on the grounds that it would have been very damaging to Richard's own claim to recognise him as such. Later Yorkist rebellions did try to make use of his claim, but this was after the throne had passed to the Tudors. Dunarc (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Richard only made him heir after his own son had died, when Edward was still a minor and not really a threat - and it's thought that was in deference to Anne, whose nephew Edward was, because, as soon as she was dead, he named an adult heir. Deb (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I take the point and that is certainly the view some historians make, but the problems are a) the claim Richard made him an heir seems to only exist in the work of John Rous whose reliability is an issue as he changed his views depending on who was in power and b) a number of historians think the idea of Richard naming Warwick as an heir is unlikely. I take the point about his youth, but it could be argued that even though Warwick was a child recognising him as heir would have been dangerous as he was from a senior York line so could challenge Richard in adulthood, or serve as a focal point for some of the Yorkists estranged from Richard (in much the same way as happened to an extent under the Tudors when Lincoln and others used a fake Warwick to try and depose Henry). Equally the adult Lincoln would have been a much better bet for Yorkist survival should Richard die suddenly (the experience of Edward V showing the problems of a minor reigning). However I suppose given that the possibility exists that Warwick was designated heir so he could be left in the category. Dunarc (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Image introduced by User:Rajputudor
Rajputudor added the image, at first wrongly identifying Edward of Middleham as Edward, Earl of Warwick. I've removed it pending further discussion. Do we really want to add this to the article? Does a Victorian illustration contribute anything? Deb (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Surtsicna (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

hey Deb the image which I had added to this page had Edward earl of warrick on the left and edward of middleham on the right and if you look at the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Pole,_Countess_of_Salisbury you will see that this victorian replica comes from an original sketch. I appreciate your opinion about this piece and would happily receive constructive criticism on many other articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajputudor (talk • contribs) 00:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that the image is unhelpful. Furthermore, the caption is badly written and incorrectly spaced so it detracts from the effectiveness of the illustration. If you still want to include this image, please demonstrate that you have consensus for the inclusion. Deb (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I really think this photo contributes to this article and you may change or re write the caption however you wish and as I said before it is a replica of an original sketch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajputudor (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the image is not helpful to the article (which makes three editors who agree). Rajputudor, please stop trying to add it. Disruptive editing can impact your editing privileges. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 19:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)