Talk:Edward VI of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Edward VI of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
Wikipedia CD Selection Edward VI of England is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Anglicanism
Anglicanism Portal
Edward VI of England is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

Contents

[edit] older entries

I know of no evidence that suggests of a love interest between Edward and Jane - unless anyone comes up with some, I will revert the last change... Hackloon 03:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some consideration for the 1549 rebellions?

There is no mention of the 1549 rebeelions as contributing to Somerset's failure. Although I'm sure there is a separate page for Somerset exclusively, I feel that the rebellions were such a significant factor that they are surely worth a mention? They gave Somerset a reputation as being almost an anarchist for supporting the commons over the ruling elite, in supporting an anti-enclosure policy. Such a mention might also be useful for those who know little about this period, as it will provide a link and reference to an incredibly interesting period of mid-Tudor history.

For a feature article it's really rather incomplete. The rebellions during his period were pretty significant, but it looks like they barely get a mention. Maybe a link could be given or something.--T. Anthony 14:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The article states that he was never Prince of Wales, but I've found a highly reputale source that suggests otherwise. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is featuring his mother's bio today (October 24th, 2005), and it states that "On 18 October Edward was proclaimed prince of Wales, duke of Cornwall, and earl of Carnarvon." You can read the article here http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html, though if you're reading this after October 24th you'll need to page back a bit to do so.

I'll grant that I may be missing some formal ritual that Edward never went through, so I have not changed the main article. But as written it seems to me the Oxford University article is trying to say he was the Prince of Wales. Can anyone explain the discrepancy? Paul Drye


[edit] mollycoddled??

since I have never ever come across this phrase before, could someone please help me with this ?

Here is a definition of the verb " Mollycoddle" as found by a Google search on the Web:

The verb "to be mollycoddled" means to treat with excessive indulgence;
example :"grandparents often pamper the children";
example :""Let's not mollycoddle our students!"
[[[1]]]


To mollycoddle is to be overprotective and indulgent toward a person or animal[.[[2]] --217.91.40.249 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some issues to improve

It seems to me that this article, while good, isn't quite up to what we currently expect of featured articles.

  • The article is short. There are plenty of extant sources on this period and I would expect a more detailed article.
  • Even while lacking in information the writing seems confusing and repetitive. For example, Edward's death causes are referred to several times in different ways but never explored in any depth.
  • There are several surviving artworks depicting Edward, there's no need to limit the article to one and use it twice.
  • A map or two might be helpful to give the reader some idea of the campaigns in Scotland and Cornwall during Edward's reign.
  • The article has no in-line citations or footnotes of any kind.
  • More solid references would be helpful. The three currently listed references are:
    1. Britannica 1911
    2. A very brief biography on a history website
    3. A tripod page which is no longer online

I hope some or all of these issues can be addressed :) Haukur 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, there seem to be issues with the last two paragraphs of the Early Life section. It goes from childhood illness, to education and siblings, back to illness. This may need to be cleaned up. 70.65.139.137 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also bothered by the fact that, earlier on in the article, it describes Edward's death as though it were definitely caused by tuberculosis, whereas in the section discussing Mary, it lists several possible causes of his death. It seems a bit unsure to me. --Charlotte M 12:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary of Scotland

I've made some small amendments here. The way it was written implied that James V was still king in 1548, when in fact he died in 1542. Mary was queen in her own right. Moreover, she was a tender 5 years old in 1548, and thus only betrothed to Francis. They were married in April 1558. Rcpaterson 01:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] birthplace

It's a bit silly to suggest that he was born in the London Borough of Richmond on Thames.

[edit] Childhood

For no particularly good reason, I've been reading the 500+ page first volume of W.K Jordan's two volume set, Edward VI: The Young King. (George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1968)

It discusses Edward's formal education beginning at age 4, not 6. (p. 40)

From the age of 1 to 4 the Chamberlain of the house (Edward's own by Henry's decree) was Sir William Sidney and Sir John Cornwallis. Describing some "Mother Jack" as his nursemaid is misleading at best. Lady Bryan was the Lady Mistress, the "all-important" position. (ibid. Page 38)

I believe it is Richard Cox, who gets a full page of description in Jordan, and not Leonard Cox, as a tutor.

There's no mention of what seems to be the most important facet of the choice of tutors. Henry picked them because he saw a Protestant future for England, and it was starting by appointing moderate humanists/Protestants as Edward's teachers. Other tutors followed the same general mold, including a Calvinist teacher of French (Belmain), some musical tutors, and maybe Sir Anthony Cooke.

Jordan writes "We know a great deal regarding the education which this brilliant group of teachers gave to a willing and highly competent student. In a quite full sense it was the curriculum which Erasmus and Vives had so eloquently recommended[.]" In other words, although the teachers were familiar with "the Protestant Reformation that had swept through the Netherlands and Germany" it wasn't likely to be directly on the syllabus.

By the way, he started with Cato and Aesop, and quickly added Solomon's proverbs in Latin (ibid. 43)

And if you think that was rough, I have quite a few changes I'd like to see to the whole sense of the religious change afoot, but that for another time.

So, should I feel free to make my changes to a "Best Of" article? I would think so. JoshNarins 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You ought to make changes as necessary. But a two volume biography of a kid who died at age 16? That seems a bit overkillish. john k 22:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
So far, a couple hundred pages in, Edward is basically only in the background. It is really about the people Henry VIII left in power and how they handled this government. For example. they kept the death quiet a bit to get Edward in town, and then Somerset and Paget kept the will quiet so they could gather power around them. The last couple chapters have been about the Reformation in England. There was a massive translation effort which included more than the top half dozen Protestant thinkers in a year's time. There was publishing of Erasmus' Book of Homilies and the Book of Common Prayer. Cranmer especially played host to lots of Continental Protestants who felt pressure at home (he never got Calvin, though). JoshNarins 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


I would be careful of Jordan - although encyclopedic in style, he frequently gets things wrong! In particular, his account of Edward's education and religious maturation are often very very odd... Hackloon 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Since he lists tutors of Edward by name and describes their political and theologic outlook, and never mentions anyone like a "Mother Jack" I'm happy to believe him until someone provides better evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession

That section is horrible stylistically and this article probably isn't worth of having FA status unless it is converted into prose. It's very difficult to read, even for a native English speaker, and should really be in wikisource, while a description and discussion is included here in the relevant section, perhaps with some short quotations to illuminate certain parts. See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - that should be in Wikisource, not here. --mav

[edit] Last Words

Where do these come from? I assume Strype or Foxe, but either way, I've added a note of caution... Hackloon 22:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Edward can yet communicate words.
Edward is of the fame of The Prince and the Pauper of Mark Twain.
When traveling in the city, he came upon a lad that looked much like himself, except for his birthmark.
While in juxta position of homes, Edward was forced to oral copulation with his (twin's step) father.
Needless to say, Edward may have aquired a disease such as syphilis from the man.
Edward wanted to see for a better life for his twin brother and saw to his traverse to the Americas;
although he considered going there himself, leaving his twin in control of England.
The Royal's dread the birth of twin brothers.
Gnostics (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted this becuase it is a link to a site which only duplicates info from the Encylopedia Britanica, and is moreover pretty dody compared to Joradan, Hoak, MacCulloch et al. Hackloon 03:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] de facto vs de jure (succession)

Technically speaking, Mary was both legally (De Jure) and practically (De Facto) successor to the Throne. However, in this article, Jane's accession, which was illegal (the act which attempted to legalise it was not drawn up in accordance with existing laws) is held to be the De Jure successor. How is that so? In any case, in accordance with this view on things, I've edited the descriptions at the bottom, no need to confuse people further. Perhaps this issue could be cleared up? Skeptic77 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything is changed in this respect, please also fix the entries for Jane and Mary, which are now corrected in accordance with the take on things as elaborated on this page. Otherwise things just get even more confusing.

Perhaps it's worth considering to drop the use of these terms here, as they seem to be very confusing and don't really add that much? Skeptic77 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mary cannot be described as a de facto successor to her half-brother until she began to exercise her sovreignty. While she was legally Queen from the moment of Edward VI's death, she did not begin to exercise authority until Jane had been deposed. --Visagrunt 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deposed? Jane was never really crowned. The current Queen's offical site makes no mention of her: [3]

Jane's reign was a fantasy entertained by a handfull of people and the only reason it has come down to the present day is that the story was often pointed to in Protestant propaganda to demonstrate that Mary was not rightly supposed to be queen, which is nonsense.

Does Jane warrent mention? No doubt about it!

Does she belong in a succession box or a list of King and Queens? No way!

Defacto Queen? She was little more then a prisoner in the tower during her "reign". Charles Edward Stuart was crowned King of the Scots at Scone in 1746, yet he isn't listed in any regnal lists. This is because, like Jane, his crown was mere fantasy. Charles has better case for inclusion then Jane! Made my case. -- SECisek 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] could be more objective

This article was rather condemnatory towards Northumberland so I thought it should be made a bit more objective. I've included a section on revisionist historians and tried to make it clear that there are several different views of the Device controversy and that there is no conclusive evidence that Northumberland was behind the plot. I've attempted to also add a lot more sources so that people know where to look for the contrary arguments.

There were also a few factual amendments, such as Edward talking recording in his journals about the illness which eventually killed him, where in fact the Chronicle stops long before he got sick. I did revise the bit about him being a "sickly child" as I read that there is now a lot of evidence that in fact he recovered very quickly from childhood illnesses and as such his death was quite surprising - can't remember my source though, so if anybody finds evidence of it (I know it's out there somewhere!) please add to it, or caution the original statement, or whatever. I wasn't quite sure the best way to go about being objective about his illnesses, since there's so little known for sure.


Brynhilde 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (who has an exam on Edward VI tomorrow, so hopes her information is accurate!)

Thanks, Brynhilde. I've made some formatting changes to tidy and standardise (not just in relation to your edits) so pls check that I haven't corrupted any of your intent, and let me know any concerns. Don't forget to tell us how you went in the exam...! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family Relationships

Lady Jane Grey was the Great-grandaughter of Henry VII. Not his grandaughter. Her mother Lady Frances Brandon was the grandaughter of Henry VII, and as such she was first offered the throne with the understanding that she would refuse it in favor of her daughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.153.236 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Infobox & Succession box

Where was the consensus to changes these. Mary I was argubaly Edward Vi's immediate successor. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't he die...

at the age of 14? I've always said 14, though I've heard 16 and 15 said before. Does anyone have any proof of which age it was? Till then, I've edited it to 14. User: warriormartin —Preceding comment was added at 00:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that his birth and death dates are at the very top of the page, it's not a difficult question. He was born in October 1537. He died in July 1553. That means he was 15, several months of his 16th birthday (which is why he's sometimes carelessly said to have been 16 at death). He definitely wasn't 14. Michael Sanders 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read several books, each said he died at age 14. Either the dates are wrong, or I am, which, I believe I am not. user: warriormartin —Preceding comment was added at 18:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he was definitely born in 1537, and he definitely died in 1553. That makes death at age 14 impossible, I'm afraid. Michael Sanders 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1st Duke of Suffolk

Were there two men named as 1st Duke of Suffolk? --Eddylyons (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there were three men called 1st Duke of Suffolk; see Duke of Suffolk. - PKM (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks for directing me. All ist klar. --Eddylyons (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] C-section

This story was spread by the Catholic Nicholas Sander but it cannot be true because c-sections were always immediately fatal for the mother, and she survived for 12 days, which would have been quite impossible for a c-section in the sixteenth century. DrKiernan (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Caesarean section contains a claim that Jakob Nufer performed a c-section where the mother survived in 1500. The article on Nufer is sourced. It would appear that whilst c-sections between 1500 and the late 1800s were usually fatal;
  1. They were not invariably so.
  2. In consequence, death in some cases would have derived from infection days after the birth.
Mayalld (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That story isn't really accepted by historians. It was written 82 years after the supposed operation, which is after the death of Nufer, his wife and the baby (who supposedly lived to be 77). The accepted dogma is that c-sections were only performed on mothers who were already dead, or nearly so, until about the nineteenth century when pioneers such as Barry claimed to have performed them successfully. DrKiernan (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That story is sufficiently accepted to have been published in an apparently reputable book. As things stand, we have a reliable source which says that a mother could survive a C-section in 1500. I've reviewed the sources on this, and find several respected sources which repeat the story. In particular, [www.neonatology.org/pdf/cesarean.pdf this source], which mentions the 82 year gap before the story was recorded, but merely states that "historians question its accuracy". So, the position is that reliable sources question the 1500 date, but do not dismiss it. As such, it would be original research to claim that it was impossible to survive a C-section at this date. We can assert that it was unlikely (because that is amply sourceable), but not that it was impossible (because that is not proveable) Mayalld (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on his role in founding and refounding schools

There is lots more that could be added on this aspect of his reign. The Victorian Charity Commissioner and amateur historian A F Leach tried to trace back the history of many grammar schools to times earlier than Edward. Leach compiled or edited several sections on education in the Victoria County Histories, so his views are often repeated by local historians. Tawney repeats a Leach-type argument that Edward did not create grammar schools but destroyed them. Joan Simon wrote a book critiquing this view and arguing that Edward created at this early stage a national system of free schools. Meanwhile, I can't really see why Sherborne is singled out for mention in this article. The The King's School, Canterbury and The King's School, Rochester both trace their histories back to the turn of the 7th century on the grounds that teaching was offered in the respective abbeys. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)