Talk:Edward VI/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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

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)

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)

causes of death at the time were very uncertain, given the state of medical knowledge and treatment. Here is something from the web: There are varying schools of thought about the cause of Edward's death -- like many young Tudors before him, he wasted away prior to his death, and his final illness has been traditionally believed to be tuberculosis. However, he had also contracted either smallpox or measles in the year before he died, and his wasting could also be attributed to diabetes, which frequently becomes severe during the growth spurts of adolescence. It is known that he was treated with medicines that contained arsenic, and that he had many of the symptoms of arsenic poisoning while on his deathbed (his hair and nails had fallen out, he was covered with ulcers, and there was a peculiar smell, similar to garlic, on his breath). Many medicines used at the time contained arsenic, and it was sometimes added to wine as well, so whether Edward's death was hastened by deliberate poisoning or not is questionable. [3] WBardwin (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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) I think that some pf the facts are not right at all. Even some of the information is completely missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.108.73 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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: [4]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edward died at the age 15. Check your calculator again... Bloody Idiot. If you want proof, I would suggest you to read the Royal history. ((User talk:Lizzy Rose)) February 15, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzy Rose (talk • contribs) 07:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

FAR

It seems the article is now at FAR, so it's time to sort it out a bit.

• I've started by removing the Tudor template, which seems to me intrusive. It's not as if the information isn't in the article, the ancestor box, or in the wads of succession boxes etc. at the bottom. I wouldn't object to the coat of arms going in its own. Apart from this, the listing is problematic: the design is bad (why the grey-blue strips?), so that Edward's name comes up twice, one above the other, and the age listing means that the monarchs are not in reign order; also we have Henry, Duke of Cornwall, listed—there were in fact two babies with this name, neither worth listing with these reigning monarchs. qp10qp (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've also removed the following "Style and arms" section:

Like his father, Edward VI was referred to with the styles "Majesty", "Highness" and "Grace". His official style was of the same form as his father: "Edward the Sixth, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith and of the Church of England and also of Ireland in Earth Supreme Head".

Edward VI's arms were the same as those used by his predecessors since Henry IV: Quarterly, Azure three fleurs-de-lys Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England).

His Royal Motto was idem per diversa, the same whatever the circumstances (similar to that of Elizabeth I - semper eadem, Always the same).

Apart from being badly written, this mostly seems redundant, and not something historians have special sections on. Also, much the same stuff is clickable above the infobox. I've removed the styles from the infobox proper below as well. What is important about styles should be mentioned within the text. And sourced. qp10qp (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed this hat note: For the impostor who claimed the throne as "Edward VI" in 1487 see Lambert Simnel. It seems to me that redirects above articles are only justifiable when more than one article potentially has the same name. qp10qp (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also removed the following external links, none of which are of much quality. qp10qp (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Stevens, Garry. (2004). "Bloody Mary: Further Intrigue in the Tudor Court".
• Site of author C.W. Gortner, author of "The Secret Lion" a novel about the final days of Edward VI's reign.
• Illustrated history of Edward VI.
• Edward VI at Find-A-Grave qp10qp (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Change of citation style

As one shouldn't really change the citation style without notice, I'll just say here that I am going to change the style to Harvnb. My reason is that the style is a bit confused at the moment, with some full book references in the notes and also a list of references. It makes sense, and will save space and readers' eyes, I think, to use shortened notes, with an alphabetical bibliography below, which one may click to from the note. Also, because I will be citing some historians, such as Jennifer Loach, who have written more than one book on the subject, it will be helpful to distinguish them through the date of their publications, rather than through the often similar titles. The style I have in mind is something like that at King Arthur.

Object, by all means. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start, but the style will only gradually become consistent as I work my way down the page. No point in converting cites that I will probably replace (for weaker sources, such as pop history books, encyclopedias, and unreliable websites). qp10qp (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removal of date formatting

I propose to remove the date formatting, which creates a lot of unnecessary blue on the page. The M0S now makes it OK not to format dates, and there has been a removal drive which has de-formatted many featured articles. At the same time, removal is not mandatory. qp10qp (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronicle

Didn't Edward write his own autobiography or keep a diary or some such that became known as his "Chronicle"? I think it should be worked in somewhere. DrKiernan (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm intending to add a paragraph or two about it and to refer to it here and there. qp10qp (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New files

Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

• 
  With the Pope
• 
  After Hans Holbein the Younger, circa 1542
• 
  By studio of William Scots, circa 1546

Dcoetzee 10:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the device section

These changes have in my opinion made the prose far stodgier and more difficult to follow. In places the writing is markedly worse than what it replaced.

Obviously the editor wanted to introduce material from Ives's new book on Lady Jane Grey, which I have also read. The material is now weighted far more in favour of Northumberland and Lady Jane Grey's legitimacy than before; but I would argue that the article was previously more balanced and gave Northumberland a fair hearing, taking into account revisions of his role that preceded Ives's. Though I am not a fan of Ives, whose Anne Boleyn was full of mistakes, I think it rash to give his voice a pre-eminence in this section of the article over that of historians less determined to prove one side of the case. What the article now lacks is the alternative view of legitimacy which preceded Henry VIII and which was drawn upon by the supporters of Mary: primogeniture.

However, my overriding concern is the marked deterioration in the prose, in particular the vagueness of tense, which makes the sequence of events unclear, and the new wordiness, lengthiness, and pedantry of the section. I have to say that in places I find it almost unreadable. qp10qp (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

TEXT AS BEFORE

"During the winter of 1552–53, Edward VI became ill, and by May his condition, which included chronic coughing and swollen legs and head, was grave. The prospect of the king's death and the succession of his Catholic sister Mary threatened disaster to those around the king. It placed in jeopardy not only the English Reformation but the powerful and lucrative positions enjoyed by Edward’s Council and officers. For these reasons, an attempt was made in June 1553, shortly before Edward's death, to subvert the succession. Henry VIII had appeared to establish the convention that an English king could dictate his own heirs and set aside the traditional rules of descent. Edward therefore wrote out several drafts of a document headed "My devise for the succession" in which he passed over the claims of the princesses Mary and Elizabeth in favour of his first cousin once removed, the seventeen-year-old Lady Jane Grey, who on 21 May was married to Guildford Dudley, the fourth son of the Duke of Northumberland, "with a display regal". Northumberland and his supporters insisted that deeply reluctant lawyers draw up a will in the terms of Edward's device, and on 21 June, this was signed by over a hundred notables, including councillors, peers, archbishops, bishops, and sheriffs, many of whom later claimed that they had been bullied into doing so by Northumberland. In the atmosphere of approaching uncertainty, Northumberland further secured his ties to the crown by betrothing a brother, son, and daughter to three individuals high in the line of succession to the throne. He also sealed an alliance with the French, banking on their support in the event of an armed challenge from Princess Mary.

The plan to exclude Princess Mary from the succession shows that those at the centre of power had lost touch with political reality. Though Henry VIII had tampered with the succession, his exclusion of his sister Margaret's heirs was understandable because her heirs were aliens. Edward's device to alter the succession was not only unconstitutional in its violation of Henry VIII's Third Succession Act of 1543 but was demonstrably the product of hurried and illogical thinking. At first, Edward had provided for the succession of Jane's male heirs, but, as his death approached, he altered the wording so that Jane herself should succeed, since he had willed the crown to male heirs who had not yet been born. Those who drew up the legal documents failed to make the same change for her two sisters, who, inconsistently, remained excluded from the succession in favour of their male heirs. By the logic of the device, Jane's mother, Frances Grey, Duchess of Suffolk, the daughter of Henry VIII's sister Mary Tudor, but unlikely now to bear a male child, should have been named as Edward's heir, but she waived her claim in favour of her daughter. On 21 June, Edward issued letters patent bastardising the princesses Mary and Elizabeth. Why the Protestant Elizabeth was cut out of the succession along with Mary is unknown; it may be that if Mary was to be excluded on grounds of bastardy, Elizabeth, who had once been bastardised herself, had to be barred for the same reason. Whether the device was Edward's own idea or the result of manipulation by his advisors has been a matter of debate for historians. In practice, Edward's aims and those of Northumberland and his followers had become identical by 1553. Edward, who believed that his word was law, understood and accepted the proposals for the succession, even if they were not his own idea.

In recent decades, revisionist historians such as Dale Hoak and Stephen Alford have emphasised that Northumberland alone did not engineer the plot to subvert the succession and place Lady Jane Grey on the throne. In his confession on the scaffold, the duke claimed that "some others" were involved, but he would not name them, "for I will hurt now no man". Although the marriage between Lady Jane Grey and Guildford Dudley, as well as other "suddenly knit" betrothals that tied Northumberland to the crown, were contracted in the last weeks of Edward's life, it has been shown that Northumberland had begun making arrangements for these alliances a year earlier, before Edward became ill. However, Edward Montagu, the Chief Justice, recalled that when legal objections to the device were raised in the Privy Council, Northumberland "fell into a great anger and rage, and called me traitor before all the Council, and said that in the quarrel of that matter he would fight in his shirt with any man living". The final responsibility for the alteration of the succession, however arrived at, must therefore be laid jointly at the door of Northumberland and of the young king himself."

The above is what was here before my rewrite. I would like to stress that it seemed quite confused to me, nor is it less wordy; it precludes the "revisionist" possibility that Edward played a serious role from the start, which constitutes a violation of NPOV, especially as the "revisionist" view seems to be quite accepted. In the last paragraph "revisionist historians" are dismissively treated, while again concentrating on Northumberland, not Edward, about whom this article is. Furthermore this section as it was, violated several WP guidelines, using strongly argumentative language, e.g, ( A, "however", B; "therefore" [as historians contradict each other, we do not really know wherefore]); jugde Montagu "recalls" after the event, but N. "claims" (after the event)-- that's not neutral and WTA; "revisionist historians such as" is both dismissive and Weasel etc. One would expressively have to call the non-revisionists as "traditionalist", otherwise revisionist sounds very POV. Furthermore FA criteria demand that the most relevant literature in the subject etc...be used. Mackie from 1952 is hardly that. I was brought to do these changes by some irksome ERRORS and the near absence of Edward. Please take into account that I have relied not only on Ives (that principally as regards the content of the device, which is, however, backed by Loades); but on Loades' academic bio of Northumberland, which is no whitewash at all.

ERRORS as tey were in the article:

• "dynastic marriages tying N. to the Crown" engineered by Northumberland. He DID NOT betroth his brother to M. Clifford; he DID marry a daughter to a distant Plantagenet, the Earl of Huntingdon; he DID NOT marry a further son to any mysterious royal person--- all sons were already married.
• HE DID NOT ARRANGE A LEAGUE WITH FRANCE (see Loades, he was approached by the French (not the other way round, as was stressed here), but nothing came of it; there is also no mention in Loades that he wanted to give Calais to the French -- it was anyway unsourced.
• It stated that Jane's sisters could not inherit the throne themselves; this is an error according to Loades, Ives, and probably others.
• "Some historians think" that N. encouraged Th. Seymour to rebel against Somerset. That's pure black legend, again see Loades, and the essay on Seymour by Bernard, and I can hardly figure out which modern historians that might be--and it's irrelevant in this context anyway.

The text as is it now, still says that the device was violating the 1543 act. There was not any mention of promogeniture before, either, just of Henry's act. I don't think WP is the place to defend or deny (500 year old) legal viewpoints. More importantly, Edward's device is (or at least the first draft) one of his "works", if you like. It sheds a lot of light on him. In the article, and the section called after the device, its contents should also figure. There was nothing of the original content and hardly anything about the development of this piece mentioned. There is room for the whole story of Mary and Jane in Edward's article, one could argue this belongs to Mary's, Jane's or Northumberland's articles rather, as Edward was then dead. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(real life intervened)

Mary's accession a "disaster" to N.; that my well be, however, Loades, long before Ives, stresses that N. and the others had not to fear much from her, "no heads were to roll", or so. Loades is also certain that the marriage with Guilford had nothing to do with any Crown taking plans (he very much stresses that N. wanted Guilford to marry M. Clifford, and only when they refused he talked to Jane's parents). Loades explicitly sees the device as Edward's work; he writes about N.: "but he could not have foreseen the combination of stubborn wilfulness and increasing physical debility...as the year advanced" (Loades considers N. had to take into account that Edward might also survive his illness; nor, according to Loades, was N. more corrupt than his forerunners, even less). I cannot agree that the text gave N. a "fair hearing". To mention his supposed dynastical marriages twice, to mention twice that he returned to Catholicism, to stress twice he sought French help for his coup, if he probably never did, etc. (twice mentioned in the whole article) is not neutral. I compared the section text that was here before August 2008, and as regards tone, it was much more neutral than that that was now here. For the FAR, Starkey and Christmas who argue that Edward played his role had vanished; "revisionist" Hoak remained but he is only concerned with that N. didn't do it all alone, which is anyway ridiculous to believe.

If the content of the device is pedantic than that's what Edward was like. "The final responsibility for the alteration of the succession..." I am not sure if WP is the place for such a kind of evaluation. And why can Henry VIII change things as he likes (because he was great and fat!) and no one else can, I mean in a moral sense? Edward did not kill Jane (as is implied in the above quote), nor did N. It was Mary, who could have spared her or sent her to Italy out of Christian clemency, instead of killing her if she was no rival to her. I do confess that I wanted to remove manifest errors and bias against N.; I did not want to make a legal case, and I did not. (In case you think only Ives says Edward was obsessed with legitimacy and male rule, Loades does this even more, and his book is from 1996, so you cannot say it's too recent.) I tried to describe what Edward wrote and how he participated. "N. insisted that deeply reluctant lawyers..."; why is it less neutral to describe that Edward did the insisting in an audience, which was not mentioned at all, although it is a famous scene (N.'s confrontation with Montagu being still there, of course). I generally find it beside the point to take this legal question that seriously today -- you wouldn't argue about who was pope and who antipope anymore, or would you? Buchraeumer (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you know that I have read all the sources in the article, including now Ives, and I would argue with most of your points above insofar as I understand them. But your way of expressing yourself is very hard to follow. You seem to think the article was biased against Northumberland: if there were biases, they were against both Edward and Northumberland's contribution to the device, allotting them equal responsibility for what turned out to be a confused and inept procedure (this view comes from the sources) that came close to producing civil war. The article is also unflattering, on the whole, towards Somerset. In short, all three of them come out rather badly, as they do in the aggregate of the sources: this article doesn't need to join the pro and anti debates that historians engage in as part of their scholarly obligations.

However, it would be obscure of me to argue all this on this talk page like a pedant. If you can get the section into good clear English, that will be fine. If not, I shall endeavour to copyedit (when you have finished) for reading ease, sequence, and grammar on the grounds that this is supposed to be an encycopedia article, not a set of notes lacking in narrative or paragraph structure. Of course, in doing so, I would respect the substance of your edits as far as possible. qp10qp (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've shortened it a bit and tried to make it a bit livelier. Please do make a copy-edit for grammar and all this! I am afraid there is little to do about the sequence -- if you look carefully it was always a problem, even before you started editing; I mean this whole section was confused before, the legal issues came and went, back and forth. You will see that the main sequence was there already as were many sentences, some with no reference near (in the first paragraph, esp.). There are simply more references now. And please accept that I did use a book by Loades, which was not used here before (it was in further reading), so I thought you perhaps had not read it, and I still doubt it. All references to "Loades 1996" are to his John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, Clarendon Press, 1996. All page numbers I gave are exact, and I didn't make anything up. If you haven't read it, please consider that authors often say quite different things in their various books -- I have often noticed that, they disagree with each other but also with themselves...Buchraeumer (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You may say that this or that doesn't have a reference tag and you are entitled to challenge what you like. But everything in the article was written with books open all around me; it's just that there has to be a limit to citations. I didn't make anything up, let me say that. And I had no reason to, because I really do not care passionately about the issues historians get worked up about, such as whether Jane or Mary was the rightful queen (a good case for either), or whether Northumberland and Somerset were or were not bad guys (a mixture). Also I get a buzz out of trying to encapsulate an aggregate view. Sometimes I had subtle reasons for referencing certain historians: for example, I felt it was right to refer to Scottish historians (Mackie and Wormald) for the war against Scotland, because the Scots' point of view is little represented, and the English were excessively cruel towards Scottish captives during this period. Perhaps it is a quirk of mine, but I always refer occasionally to pre-revisionist historians, particularly to those who wrote the more famous series, such as the Oxford History (with the proviso that one must never use them to urge points on which they have been superseded). The reason is that in my opinion the pendulum of judgement will always swing to the middle in the end, resulting in a synthesis of traditional views and new readings. Also, the old historians, such as Mackie, Black, and Elton (and, here, Jordan) are often superb narrative historians, providing better models for sequence and prose than some recent, otherwise excellent, scholars (I find Alford and MacCulloch particularly hard going). However, let me assure you that I am in agreement with the basis of much of the reassessment of Edward's reign: I thought I'd made it clear in the article that Somerset and Northumberland have been reassessed, and that Edward played a greater part in his government than previously thought. Of all the revisionist historians, my favourite was Jennifer Loach, whom I knew, and whose biography was the central one on my desk when working on this article. qp10qp (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say please that you made anything up? I said I didn't, with Loades' Northumberland, I felt you perhaps implied that. I forgot -- I also used Starkey in the section. Mackie got it a bit confused with this: "In the atmosphere of approaching uncertainty, Northumberland further secured his ties to the crown by betrothing a brother, son, and daughter to three individuals high in the line of succession to the throne.", cited to him and Jordan. Apart from Loades, I found the brother in Hester Chapman—even she managed to say that it never came to anything more than talks (and it was a year or so before Edward's death). And the son really incensed me, he never existed! Pedantics, I know. The supposed royals were Margaret Clifford, place seven in the succession, and Henry Hastings, a grand-grandchild of Clarence in the butt of wine! Who might be the third, for the phantom son? 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just dawned on me that you thought "further" meant "further son"; this "further" referred to the tightening of Northumberland's ties to the crown—the son is Guildford, of course. There was nothing new in a high noble family securing ties to the crown: the Boleyns and the Seymours had done it. It potentially suited both the crown and the family. qp10qp (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to pick at the prose for the moment. The sentence structure needs work, but it's a somewhat daunting task, because there is a lack of energy to the whole section. To give one example: Mary's accession could hardly be to the liking of the young king himself, very much for religious reasons; but he was also much concerned with male inheritance and legitimate birth, and likely saw a specific problem with that in his half-sisters. I'm not sure what tense "could hardly be" is; 'himself" seems redundant; "very much" seems an unnecessary intensifier; "but he" presumes that Edward was the subject of the sentence, which he isn't (this affects clarity and pace); "he was also much" is sapping to the prose and repeats "much"; a comma is not helpful after "birth" in what is a compound construction; "and likely" is an American locution for "and probably" and it chimes inelegantly with "liking"; "likely saw a specific problem with that in" is once again too wordy. This is the sort of thing that I'd be looking at in editing the section, in case you wonder what I'm doing. In this example, an improvement might be something like: "Edward may have opposed Mary's succession not only on religious grounds but on those of legitimacy and male inheritance, which also applied to Elizabeth". However, it's not easy to be sure that carries the meanings you intended. qp10qp (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please change whatever you want with the wording! Thanks (it's beyond my grasp to do this in a way you would find o.k.). Only, as regards the source, Loades, in this case, he states, e.g.: "Whoever was responsible for ... the device also seems to have believed that her illegitimacy was more important than her statutory rehabilitation." (p. 232). So perhaps: "was concerned", or "Edward did", or "most probably", more than: "may have". But I think it would be o.k. I am always unsure from which point it is deviating from the source; I mean, sometimes I think very little latitude (or commonsense) is allowed around here, before people say it is OR. I already toned some points a bit down. What was important in this case was that Edward was mentioned at all, after his ministers. He was missing before, and even Jordan says he was obsessed with barring Mary. You understand, I wanted to include him more into the proceedings. Even in case he was managed by N., he was very much around and seems to have done all this with gusto. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Jordan's point was already there, but in a note. Why in a note? Because it is an opinion. It does no harm going in the main text, but there seems to be a clunky list of historians opinions in the text now, with no narrative through line. As for the fact that Edward's given reason for cutting Mary out was bastardy, that was simply enough put in the previous version, I thought. We have different approaches, obviously, but that's Wikipedia. qp10qp (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Above, I forgot the male rule; Loades stresses that Edward, as Henry VIII, was obsessed with it, and with reason, because of the danger of foreign marriage. In Jane's proclamation against Mary, this figured also largely. It is the backbone of the device's original form! It pervades all, it's obvious. I think the content of the first draft explains in itself that it was Edward's idea, N. wouldn't have had this kind of mind, nor would it have been to his advantage. One can easily see that the old version of events originated from the outside view; the old school didn't take into account the device's text.

Please look: the clunky list was essentially there already. Nor do I think it's any harm, it's simply a short resume of historiogr. viewpoints. There already were some historian's viewpoints in the main text, others in the footnotes, which is against NPOV (and impractical to the reader). As regards opinion vs. facts, it's hardly possible to distinguish between them in this case; it's even an opinion (a sensible and majority one, I concede) to claim that N. and the others had so much to fear from Mary. But there is very good evidence that any other outcome than a Queen Mary didn't even occur to them still very late in May, nor were they then in panic (see Loades again), and so on. Buchraeumer (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that when a point by a historian is in the notes, it is against NPOV; but when it is in the main text it is not. How so? qp10qp (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The difficult thing about the male rule issue for the purposes of this article is that it sets us the problem of explaining clearly to the reader about the change in the wording. Although I know what happened, it may seem odd to a reader that a king who was obsessed with male rule should change his device to allow for a female succession. At the moment, the device is dealt with rather unevenly without a clearly tensed narrative. I'm thinking of bringing all the mentions of the device together, as they come and go at the moment. qp10qp (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your point about OR, I'm not of the school that wants every phrase to be a tight paraphrase of a cited source. Every act of sentence making is necessarily an act of originality, as is the choice of sources and the emphases, omissions and conclusions made by Wikipedia editors. I don't believe that certain words are intrinsically "weasel" or unusable: they may express the motivation of a historical figure or the doubts of historians. I think if one consults several sources at once, there is less chance of becoming inaccurate than with a single source, where the necessary changes of wording may inadvertently alter the emphasis. qp10qp (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, of course. We very much meet there! Most folks around here insist on all these strange restrictions; the rules are helpful to develop a more neutral tone, I must concede, and they are differentiated. But it's hopeless because many people set up their own guidelines and you are expected to do absurd things. I do not venture into trouble zones, but look at FAC these days, it's a lottery between easy passage and total harassment ("specialist academic journals please, relevant books are not enough", even if there hardly exist important journal articles). Giving, say 2, 3 or more sources in a row may trigger suspicion you are doing OR; the editor responded that he added the sources because of demands in a former FAC!Buchraeumer (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit points

• What is meant by "Habitually, Edward had drafted political essays and documents, within his last year he also had a try in some exercises in government. The first draft of his device was one of these documents ... In particular "within his last year he also had a try in some exercises in government". Clearly you want a bridge between his political essays/documents and the device, but I do not understand what this phrase means. qp10qp (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I meant this: "Habitually, Edward had drafted political essays and documents, as exercises, within his last year also as tentative attempts at government. The first draft of his device was one of these documents." The point got lost while shortening. I thought of dropping it, but needed some intro to the device as a document.Buchraeumer (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It means that Edward became mor engaged in business than before, tried the "real thing" a bit. There are memoranda by Cecil and Petre "of matters to be moved to the king". Loades: "One of Edawrd's notes suggested that if fewer than 4 concillors were present at a meeting and an urgent matter arose 'they shall declare it to the king' majesty and before him and debate it', but not reach a decision 'without it require wonderful haste'." Edward would not controll the agenda, nor be present at Council meetings, but would receive summmaries, would "deal with matters which had been referred to him for decision"(L.). Ives also has similar things. Buchraeumer (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. Thanks. qp10qp (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Northumberland's family marriage arrangements

Why do you wish these not to be in the article? If you felt the sentence needed rewording, fine, but in my opinion you shouldn't have cut it. Most (all that I've read) historians mention the matter. For example, Skidmore says: "These marriages 'so suddenly knit', fooled no one and were 'much murmured at'. To outsiders, not realising what Edward's plans were, it was blatant that Northumberland was planning something". And Elton says: "Thus, one way and another, Dudleys entered where the the crown of England might come to rest".

As I said before, your edits have made this section rely on Loades and Ives: they obviously have a different view on the marrage arrangements, but they still address the point. As to which historians are right, neither you nor I know: the historians make their deductions based on the limited information. I think the information that three members of Northumberland's family (not counting Jane's sister) made marriages or moved towards marriage arrangements with individuals related to the royal family should be mentioned, even if no implications are drawn from it (probably better to mention it flatly rather than lumber the readers with historians' interpretations). qp10qp (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will add the May triple match; I don't know which mariages Skidmore means, I suppose the triple one. So we have Guilford and Catherine Dudley who married Huntingdon's son. According to Schefye, talks for an alliance of N.'s brother Andrew (who never married) with Margaret Clifford began in June. He writes also that N. and his eldest son would divorce in order to marry Elizabeth. Loades writes a lot about Andrew Dudley, but never mentions this. I removed the betrothals statement that was there because it was factually wrong, as I elaborated earlier. I wouldn't have removed the triple marriage if it had been mentioned. I had a note that there were more matches, but removed it for clarity. Please note that historians' interpretations were there already and touch the important point whether Edward is at the core of the matter or not. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I can add it when I'm copyediting, if you like. I do not agree that what was there before was factually wrong, except that the word "further" made it appear to you that it referred to someone other than Guildford—that could have been remedied without deleting it, and the word "betrothed" could have been replaced by some other description of the marriage arrangements. The significance of these marriages and marriage arrangements was that, no matter when they were planned, they all took place at around the time it became clear that Edward was dying and when the device was altered to make Jane the heir. It is all right for Loades and Ives—in the interest of their overall arguments—to say that this was just routine dynastic behaviour, but it's the timing of it that gives it relevance to the section. After all, not every historian shares the belief of Loades and Ives that these marriages and arrangements were routine, given the circumstances of the king's impending death. qp10qp (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your edit, which helps, though I wouldn't have gone into such detail. Why do you mention Margaret Clifford in the note? Your note seems designed to defend Northumberland by giving Loades' view of the marriages. How does this square with what you said above: "There already were some historian's viewpoints in the main text, others in the footnotes, which is against NPOV (and impractical to the reader)"?qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at my penultimate edit-summary you see I wanted to add the ambassador's statement about Clifford and about Northumberland's divorce in order to marry Princess Elizabeth. Schefye wrote on 30 May and 15 June that Northumberland would divorce his wife and on 11 June that his brother would marry M. Clifford. Schefye had reported N.'s divorce plan already in November 1550: the object of desire was also Elizabeth. Schefye, in 1553, wrote also that John Dudley junior was going to divorce and marry first Jane Grey (married to Guilford), then it was to be Elizabeth. So Elizabeth, who had just been debarred from the succession, could choose between father and son. Buchraeumer (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Have included the marriage talk. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why have a note giving Loades' view that the marriages were routine and not one from another historian who says they were not? In my opinion it is better to say neither, since neither can be proved. qp10qp (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Note on Wingfield and favouring of the Loades/Ives view

Why have a note saying that Wingfield thought Montagu was one of the most zealous supporters of the device while not giving Wingfield's criticism of Northumberland? I don't think the reader would be interested in either, frankly.

I know you favour Loades' and Ives's interpretation, but you shouldn't overlook the fact that their case is an argumentative one. Loades is much more measured than Ives, who verges on the polemical; but don't forget that to play down Northumberland's role, they have to argue away, one by one, the items of evidence traditionally used against him.

This involves dismissing Wingfield's view of Northumberland as a biased and belated one; it also involves dismissing Montagu's testimony against Northumberland as biased and belated. They also have to dismiss contemporary opinion that Northumberland was trying to get control of the crown by marrying Jane (Noailles even sensed a plot before he knew about Jane). They also have to argue away Jane's own testimony against Northumberland as being belated and from corrupted sources. They have to argue that the weddings of Northumberland's family members were routine. They have to argue away Northumberland's messages to France as also routine. They have to argue that Mary's immediate selection of Northumberland as the ringleader was simply the choosing of a scapegoat. And that since the Council scapegoated Northumberland merely as a means of saving their own necks, their testimony about his behaviour is unreliable.

Ives, in particular, does a virtuoso job of arguing down all the pieces of evidence against Northumberland: that's what historians do, and I'm not saying this view shouldn't be included in the section. But where historians are quoted, they should be quoted in balance, rather than, as at present in the section, selected more from one side of the argument than the other.

Where historians are directly mentioned, the effect is to overwhelmingly favour the Ives/Loades view, with only Hoak quoted on the other side. See as follows:

• "David Loades, Eric Ives, and David Starkey, the latter of whom has stated that "Edward had a couple of co-operators, but the driving will was his", have all attributed the inception of the device as well as the insistence to go through with it firmly to Edward's initiative. Edward's biographer, W.K. Jordan, believed that his "resolve to bar Mary from the throne had now become something approaching a mania."

• "In contrast to this, Dale Hoak has argued: "Contrary to what has been thought, the scheme to alter the succession originated in Northumberland’s camp and not in King Edward’s brain". According to Hoak, Edward's aims and those of Northumberland and his followers had become identical by 1553."

• "Plans for these weddings had been drawn-out and had started long before Edward became ill. David Loades has seen them as 'routine actions of dynastic politics'."

• "The Marian supporter Robert Wingfield wrote shortly after Mary's accession that all the lawyers, except two, had backed Jane's succession "up to the hilt", and that Montagu had been the most zealous in that respect."

• "W.K. Jordan dated this first draft to January or February 1553; Eric Ives thinks it unlikely to have been written before April. Both believe Edward wrote it before he realised he was mortally ill."

The effect of these quotations and references would be to give the reader the impression that most historians believe Northumberland's role was innocuous. There's such a thing as taking his rehabilitation too far.

While adding material from Ives and Loades was a good idea, the effects of your changes has been to weight the sourcing too heavily in their favour.

Before your edits, the sources cited for the section were: Loach 4 times, Mackie 5, Guy 2, Skidmore 3, Hoak 5, Jordan 5, Elton 3, Alford 1.

After your edits, the sources cited are: Ives 20, Loades 13, Starkey 3, Loach 4, Hoak 2, Elton 1, Jordan 2, Mackie 1.

qp10qp (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Bastardy

You have cited the following sentence to Ives, pp. 148–149, but I do not see it on those two pages, as such: The letters patent of 21 June excluded the princesses Mary and Elizabeth because of bastardy. This whole passage is very muddled now and I'll be seeking to make it clearer. qp10qp (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a longer piece sourced to Jordan 1970, p. 515; Elton 1977, p. 373n16; I didn't know which applied; the sequence hasn't changed and it was even more muddled before. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll remove some duplication here, as illegitimacy was already mentioned. The Jordan and Elton refs back up the speculation that Edward may have excluded Elizabeth for bastardy; they don't reference the legal logic of the letters patent. Small matter. qp10qp (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether Edward knew he was mortally ill

I've decided to remove the following from your note: "Some historians believe Edward wrote it before he realised he was mortally ill. Ives 2009, pp. 137–139; Loades 1996, p. 231". The main reason is that I don't think the readers need it. But if you insist that it stays, it will be necessary to add information here about the seriousness of his illness in February, at a time when many believed Edward was about to die. This would further lengthen a very long note. Loades and Ives need to argue that since Edward envisioned his own possible heirs, he didn't believe he would die. Yes, I'm sure he hoped to recover, but by then he must have known his death was possible, or why would this young boy be writing what is in effect a form of will? Even Ives says that he wrote the device in remission. qp10qp (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem with removing! Buchraeumer (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Edward's article

I have added the French connection in the device and Jane & Mary sections; I also added Gates, which I had planned anyway. If you read the section and notes now you cannot say that Northumberland is exonerated. But this is Edward's article, and he is now more present in the section named after his document, as he deserves. Please note that the Loades book is not an argumentative one. It's the only full biography of Northumberland extant, academic or otherwise. His view on Edward is more or less the Alford/MacCulloch/Jordan/Starkey/Ives/Christmas/Skidmore/Loach...view; Loades doesn't exonerate N., nor is he especially sympathetic to him; in his conclusion he compares him with Thomas Cromwell, in the way they served their master(s). As biographer of Mary, he is sympathetic to her as he is to Edward. But he is also realistic and wonders why Suffolk, "probably the most guilty man after N.", was released after a few days and never even charged. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You urge that Northumberland should not figure too much here because this is an article about Edward. How odd then that you should insist on a biography of Northumberland as a main source for the section.

Loades's book is less extreme than Ives's, but it sets out to rehabilitate Northumberland just as Ives's book sets out to assert the case for the Jane Grey succession. And it does argue strongly for one side of the case. For example, Loades writes: "It is hard to believe that Northumberland, or any other responsible adviser, had any share in the preparation of this document" and "These are not the thoughts of a practical politician, but of a person pursuing an obsession". What Loades argues is that Edward alone was behind the Device and that, though Northumberland may have had something to do with the amendment, he was merely enabling what the king wanted. This is a valid theory, but it is too one-sided to predominate in the section. However, I acknowledge that more balance is coming in.

As you know, I think Edward and Northumberland were both responsible, and I assume Gates, Cheke, and others in the household were in on it from the start. (I wouldn't go as far as Hoak in believing that the device was dictated to Edward, but I agree with him that the boy must have been manipulated, though in such a way that he did not realise it. Edward had no reason to keep secret a document that would have pleased his advisers so much—nor, I believe, had he the means to do so. This view is no less valid, given the absence of evidence, than that Northumberland and co knew nothing about it). It might seem odd that Northumberland would allow such a confused document to go before the judges but he was a soldier not a lawyer, and a reason for the Device's oddities may be that the lawyers were kept away from it till then. qp10qp (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, since 1980 Hoak has changed his mind about this: Dale Hoak. "Edward VI (1537–1553)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008. Retrieved 2010-04-04. (subscription required). Buchraeumer (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible TFA

Hi, this article is being considered as a possible Today's Featured Article for 28 January. Comments are welcome at WP:TFA/R. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition to intro

This was added by an anonymous editior before the word "Ireland": (unlawfully, under Irish or Brehon Law). I'll leave it for someone else to decide whether it's in or out. Amandajm (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

legality under irish law

I hesitate to try to make any edits - but given the history between English attempts to subjugate and eventually colonize Ireland, and given the pre-existing Gaelic order and Brehon law - it seems to me that, neutrality as such, requires some mention of what was a thoroughly illegitimate kingship under *Irish* [Brehon] law.

I don't suggest this be covered in depth, but to ignore the fact that England essentially gave itself a kingship over a foreign country, which could not be, under Brehon law, a legitimate kingship [perhaps a 'lordship'] seems strange. I leave to others to make any changes, but as reference of sorts: http://www.irish-society.org/Hedgemaster%20Archives/brehon_laws.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.153.71 (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 

Rough wooing

Why is this section in this article? Important in anglo-scottish history, certainly, but relevant to an entry on Edward? 194.216.64.18 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Third introductory paragraph

I think perhaps this should be brought to someone's attention who knows how to use wikipedia better than me, but it says on the third paragraph of the article... "Edward fell ill in January 1553 when he analed his grand-father and got AIDS, and when it was discovered to be terminal, he and his Council drew up a "Devise for the Succession", attempting to prevent the country being returned to Catholicism." I really don't know what the original line was, but I'm fairly certain Edward didn't contract time traveling AIDS from his dead grandfather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyranodeventura (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

List of founded Schools

A lasting legacy of Edward VI's reign is the large number of Royal Charters he granted to grammar schools (I went to one; it was drummed into us). Is there scope for an appropriate mention of this, and possibly a formal list / disambig page, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Edward_VI_School ? Comrade jo (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening of tomb

His tomb was apparently opened in 1789 and the body examined. This may merit mention in the article. Drutt (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Princess?

How come Elizabeth is referred to as "13-year-old Princess Elizabeth", when she in fact at that time did not have the right to, or used, that title? Wouldn't Lady Elizabeth be correct? /--Idunius (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Feel free to correct that, please! This shouldn't be contentious. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! /--Idunius (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Succession Crisis section is impossible to read

I just want to find out whether Jane inherited the throne, but the section convoluted and filled with asides ("however, many historians have attributed the inception of bla bla bla...") that I still don't know after an hour of trying to read through it.

The section is written a lot more like a book than an encyclopedia article. 67.1.71.244 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Change in religion

"Charles V advised her to accept the throne even if it were offered to her on condition she made no change in religion." - is this a mistake? this would make more sense if this said, "even if she were required to convert to Protestantism" or something of the sort. plus, it's unsourced in a FA, which makes me wonder about whether this is true at all. 87.82.56.166 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's true that Charles advised her to this effect; i.e. if the crown were offered to her on condition that, as queen, she made no changes in religion. Nobody thought of demanding she converted to Protestantism. Buchraeumer (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Meaning, no change in the official state position on religion? or no change in her personal religious practices? 87.82.56.166 (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The point was that, if asked, she should agree to promise not to make changes to the religious settlement of the state (a promise that could be dishonoured as soon as she was queen, the emperor suggested). Buchraeumer (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Edward VI was Murdered

Whoever is writing this piece should read Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I.

The essence of the book is that Elizabeth had children, one of which was Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, better known to the world as William Shakespeare. A similar book, Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom, by Charles Beauclerk, follows a similar line of logic. Evidence is abundant that she had the child of Thomas Seymour, in July 1548.

In regards to Edward, it is most likely that Edward VI was poisoned by Robert Dudley who was the master of the bed chamber. John Dudley, the father, had every reason to poison him, and probably did so. Robert had a reputation for poisoning and the symptoms shown by Edward VI were the same as a later wife of Robert Dudley, who escaped death at his hands.

Paul Streitz author Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.125.21 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Dudley's main fault was being John Dudley's younger brother, for when the Duke of Northumberland went to the block, Robert barely escaped the same fate. The rumors of poison were just that - rumors to sully and discredit Robert Dudley's reputation, mainly given life by the Spanish ambassador and Robert's rivals at court. Wiki's own article discusses the poison rumor and the above, and mentions the fact that few reputable historians put any credence to the poison rumor. Amy Robsart. DTavona (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was he named Edward?

Henry VIII's three short-lived sons, two by Katherine of Aragon and one by Anne Boleyn, were all named as Henry Duke of Cornwall. Does anyone know why Edward was given a different name ? (Obviously he could have been named after Henry's grandfather Edward IV, but as the earlier namings suggest that Henry wanted to maintain his own regnal name for his successor, there must have been a reason for the change). RGCorris (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the name Henry proved rather unlucky, and Henry VIII was superstitious enough to cause an international havoc with his first wife and behead the second for witchcraft. Also, you should bear in mind that at the time of Edward VI's birth, Henry VIII still had one living son named after him - Henry FitzRoy. FitzRoy died two weeks after Edward's birth. Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not so - Henry Fitzroy died on 23rd July 1536, whereas Edward was born on 12th October 1537. It may be that after losing four sons named Henry the king thought a change of name might bring better luck but is there any documentary proof to confirm that ? It is also possible that he was named after his mother's eldest living brother, but that seems unlikely. RGCorris (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How on Earth did I manage to put FitzRoy's death in September 1537? Anyway, I've tried googling, but did not find anything. Surtsicna (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Guardian. His twin brother may have been named Henry? Gnostics (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

He was never prince of wales

At the time of Henry VIII's death, there was talk of creating Edward prince of wales, but as far as I know, he wasn't. Ericl (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If that had been done, it would have been very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.12.86 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

But, see this discussion at this page on the future Edward VI, and this source at http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-c.html. Wikiman86 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Deposition of Jane by Mary, figure altered

This edit (by a user who has no other edits other than to place some bogus awards on his user page) changes the figure from 13 days to 9 days.

Subsequent edit by a different editor Ian Rose builds upon this, and he reverts my reversion saying "My removal of an unnecessary "however" was deliberate, and it's 9 days according to the main body of the article -- if you think I've misinterpeted something let's discuss...".

If this is correct, then fair enough, but can you please clarify- thanks. Ubcule (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Tks for starting the discussion. My first thought when figures are changed without explanation in Featured Articles is to revert, but because the new figure didn't seem outrageous I checked the main body... Under the subsection Queen Mary and Queen Jane there is the following cited text: "on 19 July the Council publicly proclaimed Mary as queen; Jane's nine-day reign came to an end" -- so "nine days" in the lead seemed valid. That's all I'm basing it on, there are others more expert than I in this area, e.g. Hchc2009 and Ealdgyth, who might be able to confirm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Jane is traditionally called the "Nine-Day Queen", and her reign is given as 10-19 July. Edward died on the 6th, so the extra four days comes from the 6-10. "Within 13 days" also does not contradict "9 days" because 9 days is within 13. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford:; Fair enough, if the nine day figure is correct, I'm happy to accept that. I was sceptical in the first place because unexplained changes of figures by anonymous users or those with negligible history (the person who made the original change) are frequently- though not always- misinformation vandalism. Ubcule (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this period, but the 9 day statement is one I've seen elsewhere in the literature, and the "nine-day Queen" statement is a common label for her, as Celia says. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Tks all -- I think now that there was some ambiguity (which Celia has highlighted) because although Jane was deposed after nine days on the throne, it was 13 days after Edward's death. I've been bold and tried to remove that ambiguity, sticking to the nine-day reign bit -- it may be improved but I hope this makes things clearer for the reader. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's much clearer! Celia Homeford (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Table of ancestry

I changed the title of the Ahnentafel section yesterday to "Table of ancestry"; this was reverted with the edit summary“ "Table of ancestry does not mean anything. Ahnentafel does".
This seems an odd contention; Table of ancestry is plain enough English (and is a fair translation of ahnentafel) while Ahnentafel itself is a technical term unfamiliar to most readers (and without a link, likely to remain so). It is also inconsistent with most of the other articles we have on English (and later, British) monarchs.
So, why then is it important to retain it? Moonraker12 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that "ahnentafel" is much more precise than "table of ancestors" and, since ahnentafel is what is in the article, it would make more sense to use that term (the more precise one). The family tree preceding it is also an ancestry table, so we should probably be more precise. I do not feel very strongly about this, but can we not include a link? Template:Ahnentafel top might be the place for it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

How about moving the ahnentafel above the family tree so that it is just below the "Ancestry" heading? Then there would be no need for a second sub-heading. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: On the subject of being more precise, ahnentafel simply means “ancestor table”, for which “table of ancestors” is just as good; and the more precise term in English would be “pedigree”. As for what is in the article, an ahnentafel is a means of giving ancestors a numerical value, and would look like this; what we have here is a pedigree chart with ahnentafel numbering (If you want a link to the ahnentafel article, that phrase could always be included in the table somewhere). And a family tree isn't just an ancestor table, as it covers descendants, siblings and cousins as well.

But the issue here isn't what is more precise, but why it is necessary to use a relatively obscure non-English term in preference to a clearly understandable English one (which we are specifically enjoined not to do). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: That would be one remedy, though I can't help thinking that arrangement would suggest the ancestors table was more important (giving it a full section) than the family tree (just a sub-section). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also be happy with removal (it isn't cited and I agree is not as important as the family tree). Celia Homeford (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"embracing" Elizabeth

> In summer 1548, a pregnant Catherine Parr discovered Thomas Seymour embracing Lady Elizabeth. Is this really how it should be portrayed? Thomas Seymour at the very least harassed and molested her, at the worst assaulted or raped her. "embracing" seems like a Victorian children's history book describing the scenario... DarkyDu (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What does the RS state? Do you have an RS to counter it?104.169.28.122 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sermon by Cramner

In "All Things Made New" by Diarmaid MacCulloch, the author acknowledges that the Coronation sermon by Cramner was a forgery perpetrated by Robert Ware, and this even took him in when he wrote his biography of Cramner earlier.

At the very least, this Wiki article should take the sermon (referring to Josiah) as highly suspect historically.

"In 1547 Archbishop Thomas Cranmer preached a pithy and dramatic sermon at the Coronation of King Edward VI, urging the royal youth to renew the scriptural role of young King Josiah of Judah in his own kingdom. In the early 1560s, Queen Elizabeth I berated Dean Alexander Nowell, in his own cathedral church of St Paul’s, for subversion of her Protestant religious settlement through his ill-judged gift to her of a presentation copy of the Book of Common Prayer, enriched with devotional pictures. Both events are still repeatedly to be met with in accounts of the English Reformation, and the first has recently become something of a fixture in references to King Edward, but there is one problem: neither of them happened. They are fictions created by Robert Ware of Dublin (1639– 97)."

" Edward was on on the throne for 3 years before his death. He also was a super cool dude according to our family history and note books hidden in our loft. he was also one of the only nice kinks and he only took a bit fro his Dad King Henry the VIII. 🤢 he never knew that his rain would end so ealy. he also like watching youtube. AND THEY WERE ROOMMATES! omg they were roommates! any wayi wanted to cheer you up during this covid-19 i hoped you enjoyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.228.11 (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. All Things Made New: Writings on the Reformation (p. 321). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.