Talk:Edward VI

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)

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)."

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