The birth of a son earlier actually stabilises Edward's regime considerably.
Anti Woodville propoganda has two origins the complaints of Warwick in 1469 and those of Richard III in 1483 neither stand up too well to scrutiny as factually based (Richard's relationship with the Queen and her family up to 1483 was actually very good) - It was a standard convention or practice of the period for a rebel to attack those around a King rather than the monarch himself presenting themselves as a loyal subject merely trying to "save" the King from his evil advisers.
Warwick and Edward's relationship was already rocky before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and got worse afterwards - largely because Edward was committed to a pro-Burgundian policy and Warwick favoured a French alliance to neutralise French support for the Lancastrian cause. Warwick was also exceptionally greedy and liked to present himself as the power behind the throne to foreign diplomats and the like.
It is rather like a young Henry VIII allowing Wolsey to run the country whilst he enjoys the benefits but eventually Henry grew up. Edward was quite happy to rely on Warwick to help gain and secure the crown but he wasn't necessarily going to allow Warwick to rule for him.
If you look at rewards and land grants the Neville's received far more than any of the Queen's immediate family. In financial terms the Woodville's were relatively poor (much of their estate relied on The dower of the Duchess of Bedford which was a life only estate and would not pass to her sons)
Anthony Woodville had a good reputation throughout Europe and it was very natural to appoint him to the Prince of Wales council (and I think a 1466 male heir would still be entrusted to him rather than the Queen's father) he was was already married to the Scales heiress, and his father was already on the council before the marriage.
The marriages of the Queen's unmarried sisters were largely to families who were strong Yorkist supporters and already had strong connections with the Queen (her mother in law was married to a Bourchier and the Grey Earls of Kent were related to her first husband) - there is also evidence the King encouraged the matches - unlike many of his aristocratic support the Woodville's were entirely reliant on Royal patronage (like many of Edward's household) which made their loyalty much easier to ensure compared to a wealthy aristocrat who could easily switch sides.
John Neville's marriage to the much married dowager Duchess of Norfolk - might actually have been quite useful for her - as a wealthy dowager with a rapacious family desperate for her lands she would have been a target for an arranged marriage to pass her estates to someone loyal to either her family or the King for the remainder of her lifetime - marrying the much younger King's brother in law provided safety for her and her estates.
The Woodville's were a useful and easy target for those unhappy with Edward.
Warwick's biggest bugbear after his declining influence was the lack of suitable husband's for his daughters and Edward IV's reluctance to allow Clarence in particular to marry Warwick's eldest daughter.
Clarence's betrayal might be stymied by a male heir born in 1466 his position as heir presumptive vanishes earlier and with a male heir Edward might be more willing to allow his marriage to Isabel Neville.
If Warwick doesn't rebel then a Lancastrian restoration becomes unlikely and Margaret of Anjou and her son remain pensioners of the French King through the 1470s. It also probably means a natural death for Henry VI rather than murder.
A Prince of Wales born in 1466 certainly postpones or delays a Warwick rebellion and it secures Edward's reign and certainly wipes out any Yorkist split on Edward IV's death.
IN 1483 assuming Edward IV dies on schedule then you have an adult Edward V on the throne (who may or not be close to his mother's family - people are not always fond of those responsible for their upbringing and education after all).
Anti Woodville propoganda has two origins the complaints of Warwick in 1469 and those of Richard III in 1483 neither stand up too well to scrutiny as factually based (Richard's relationship with the Queen and her family up to 1483 was actually very good) - It was a standard convention or practice of the period for a rebel to attack those around a King rather than the monarch himself presenting themselves as a loyal subject merely trying to "save" the King from his evil advisers.
Warwick and Edward's relationship was already rocky before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and got worse afterwards - largely because Edward was committed to a pro-Burgundian policy and Warwick favoured a French alliance to neutralise French support for the Lancastrian cause. Warwick was also exceptionally greedy and liked to present himself as the power behind the throne to foreign diplomats and the like.
It is rather like a young Henry VIII allowing Wolsey to run the country whilst he enjoys the benefits but eventually Henry grew up. Edward was quite happy to rely on Warwick to help gain and secure the crown but he wasn't necessarily going to allow Warwick to rule for him.
If you look at rewards and land grants the Neville's received far more than any of the Queen's immediate family. In financial terms the Woodville's were relatively poor (much of their estate relied on The dower of the Duchess of Bedford which was a life only estate and would not pass to her sons)
Anthony Woodville had a good reputation throughout Europe and it was very natural to appoint him to the Prince of Wales council (and I think a 1466 male heir would still be entrusted to him rather than the Queen's father) he was was already married to the Scales heiress, and his father was already on the council before the marriage.
The marriages of the Queen's unmarried sisters were largely to families who were strong Yorkist supporters and already had strong connections with the Queen (her mother in law was married to a Bourchier and the Grey Earls of Kent were related to her first husband) - there is also evidence the King encouraged the matches - unlike many of his aristocratic support the Woodville's were entirely reliant on Royal patronage (like many of Edward's household) which made their loyalty much easier to ensure compared to a wealthy aristocrat who could easily switch sides.
John Neville's marriage to the much married dowager Duchess of Norfolk - might actually have been quite useful for her - as a wealthy dowager with a rapacious family desperate for her lands she would have been a target for an arranged marriage to pass her estates to someone loyal to either her family or the King for the remainder of her lifetime - marrying the much younger King's brother in law provided safety for her and her estates.
The Woodville's were a useful and easy target for those unhappy with Edward.
Warwick's biggest bugbear after his declining influence was the lack of suitable husband's for his daughters and Edward IV's reluctance to allow Clarence in particular to marry Warwick's eldest daughter.
Clarence's betrayal might be stymied by a male heir born in 1466 his position as heir presumptive vanishes earlier and with a male heir Edward might be more willing to allow his marriage to Isabel Neville.
If Warwick doesn't rebel then a Lancastrian restoration becomes unlikely and Margaret of Anjou and her son remain pensioners of the French King through the 1470s. It also probably means a natural death for Henry VI rather than murder.
A Prince of Wales born in 1466 certainly postpones or delays a Warwick rebellion and it secures Edward's reign and certainly wipes out any Yorkist split on Edward IV's death.
IN 1483 assuming Edward IV dies on schedule then you have an adult Edward V on the throne (who may or not be close to his mother's family - people are not always fond of those responsible for their upbringing and education after all).