Edward VI (1537-1553)

[Eruanna]

I was going through British Royal History this morning, and ended up reading (well, Wikipedia-ing) the Tudor I knew next to nothing about - The Boy King, Edward. Ascending to the throne after the death of his father at just nine years old, he ruled England for six years until his tragic death at just fifteen (I'm fifteen now and to think of dying now, having so few experiences, is downright depressing).
Throughout his short reign, he was constantly being shoved down by one regent or another. In six years, he had to stare the probability of open Civil War more than once.
I was surprised to find, instead of a weak, utterly incompetent idiot of a child, a boy who was quite precoscious, brilliant even. Fluent in French as well as Latin, he on several occasions write entries in his journal in Greek, as most of his courtiers couldn't read it.
After a couple hours of intense Googling, I am left stilll knowing next to nothing. My questions are, does anyone else know anything about this kid? Information or anyone who has any interest in him would be appreciated. And does it seem fair that history has for the most part brushed over a truly interesting character?

Grace.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Eruanna,

Welcome to the Royal Forums.

Sounds like he was a true child of Henry VIII; Mary and Elizabeth were also intelligent and scholarly and spoke fluently in foreign languages. I must admit that I know little about Edward but I hope others will come forward with some information for us. Undoubtedly his youth and short reign constrained him from leaving any lasting mark on England and may account for little information about him. We probably know more about the Regent than Edward.

 

[Artemisia]

Today is the anniversary of Edward VI's coronation.
If you would like to read a detailed account of the day, have a look at this post - Coronation of Edward VI.

 

[ukchrisuk]

Hi

I have just completed my webpage on Edward VI, would appreciate anyone who is interested in the "Boy King" taking a look and giving feedback if poss either here or/and on the site British Royal Family Tree King Edward VI » British Royal Family Tree

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Hi

I have just completed my webpage on Edward VI, would appreciate anyone who is interested in the "Boy King" taking a look and giving feedback if poss either here or/and on the site British Royal Family Tree King Edward VI » British Royal Family Tree

This post and your recent summary of Henry VII's rule are excellent. Thanks.

 

[ukchrisuk]

This post and your recent summary of Henry VII's rule are excellent. Thanks.

I very much appreciate your comments, thank you. There will be more to come shortly

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I am amazed by the shear amount of information ukchrisuk managed to provide about Henry VII, but I am even more amazed by the wealth of information about Edward VI. I had read that Edward VI had been actively involved in matters of state, but it is interesting that he was as involved as he was. From a modern perspective, it is hard to imagine a 15 year old boy, knowing that he was dying, would actually commit so much energy into trying to assure that his religious reforms would survive.

 

[Mariel]

this is great. I knew nothing about Edward VI. I am shocked once again to read how these Tudors solved their problems by beheading their rivals. They were more beastly than the Huns. Can anyone deny this? And most of the beheading was done about religion, Protestant vs. Catholic and vice-versa. My Scots family in those times was one of those who had to flee to Ireland because of religious persecution, and thus many of their name, Pollock, are called Irish or Scots-Irish, but I don't know if they fled because they were Catholic or because they were Protestant, since both sides beheaded the other side. Somehow my direct ancestor held on in Dundee until the late 19th century, but she disowned her own sister for marrying a Catholic in America. Fie! It never ends.

 

[Ish]

this is great. I knew nothing about Edward VI. I am shocked once again to read how these Tudors solved their problems by beheading their rivals. They were more beastly than the Huns. Can anyone deny this? And most of the beheading was done about religion, Protestant vs. Catholic and vice-versa. My Scots family in those times was one of those who had to flee to Ireland because of religious persecution, and thus many of their name, Pollock, are called Irish or Scots-Irish, but I don't know if they fled because they were Catholic or because they were Protestant, since both sides beheaded the other side. Somehow my direct ancestor held on in Dundee until the late 19th century, but she disowned her own sister for marrying a Catholic in America. Fie! It never ends.

Actually, little beheading was done purely because of religion. Heretics - those who preached against whatever religion was official at the time - were typically burned at the stake. Similarly, women who were found guilty of treason were burned as well. Decapitation, or beheading, was seen as a more honorable death reserved for aristocrats.

Jane was officially sentenced to be burned at the stake because of her treason against the rightful monarch, Mary I, but had her sentence commuted to the more honourable (and less painful) beheading.

The Tudors, however, were far from the only (or first) monarchs to execute individuals for treason. Nor were they the only ones to execute individuals because of their religion.

 

[ukchrisuk]

I am amazed by the shear amount of information ukchrisuk managed to provide about Henry VII, but I am even more amazed by the wealth of information about Edward VI. I had read that Edward VI had been actively involved in matters of state, but it is interesting that he was as involved as he was. From a modern perspective, it is hard to imagine a 15 year old boy, knowing that he was dying, would actually commit so much energy into trying to assure that his religious reforms would survive.

I am glad you found it informative. The site is a work in progress so please come back regularly. For information I have just updated the British side of the House of Orange at British Royal House of Orange

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Actually, little beheading was done purely because of religion. Heretics - those who preached against whatever religion was official at the time - were typically burned at the stake. Similarly, women who were found guilty of treason were burned as well. Decapitation, or beheading, was seen as a more honorable death reserved for aristocrats.

Jane was officially sentenced to be burned at the stake because of her treason against the rightful monarch, Mary I, but had her sentence commuted to the more honourable (and less painful) beheading.

The Tudors, however, were far from the only (or first) monarchs to execute individuals for treason. Nor were they the only ones to execute individuals because of their religion.

There was a lot of upheaval all over Europe throughout the Tudor reign, but I am struck by how many intimates of Henry VIII were executed either during his reign or in the years leading up to Elizabeth's rule. It seems as though most of his advisors (and wives) were executed.

Regarding the method, it is really outrageous that aristocratic men were automatically spared the agony of being hanged then drawn and quartered (the sentence for common men), but aristocratic women had to rely on the mercy of the King. It does seem that most of the women who were executed for treason were beheaded rather than burned at the stake.

I've read that there was a ban on torturing aristocratic men, was there a similar ban on torturing aristocratic women?

 

[Ish]

There was a lot of upheaval all over Europe throughout the Tudor reign, but I am struck by how many intimates of Henry VIII were executed either during his reign or in the years leading up to Elizabeth's rule. It seems as though most of his advisors (and wives) were executed.

Regarding the method, it is really outrageous that aristocratic men were automatically spared the agony of being hanged then drawn and quartered (the sentence for common men), but aristocratic women had to rely on the mercy of the King. It does seem that most of the women who were executed for treason were beheaded rather than burned at the stake.

I've read that there was a ban on torturing aristocratic men, was there a similar ban on torturing aristocratic women?

By far most of the executions (of noble/aristocratic persons) undertaken during the reigns of Henry and his children were treason related; a rebellion happened, nobles were accused (rightly or wrongly) of being involved, and then they were executed.

Wikipedia has a (incomplete) list of executions under the four, and of the 27 people listed as having been executed by Henry, 10 were involved in one plot or another, 3 basically had bad associations at court, 3 were "heretics", 8 were involved in helping 2 of his wives commit adultery, 2 were said wives, and 1 ran afoul of Henry's paranoia near the end of the reign.

Only 2 people are listed under Edward, the two Seymour brothers who definitely did commit treason against the king. Under Mary, the first bunch are all associated with the plot to put Jane Grey on the throne, the second bunch are associated with the Wyatt Rebellion, and the last bunch are all "heretics". There are only 6 executions attributed to Elizabeth; 5 for treason and 1 for religion, but all the treasons were committed in the name of religion.

There were some aristocratic individuals who were drawn and quartered instead of being beheaded - such as Hugh Despenser the Younger, or the Welsh princes. It just depended on who the monarch was.

As for torturing aristocratic women, there's only one woman known to have been tortured in the Tower of London, Anne Askew (who was eventually executed for heresy).

 

[Mariel]

Ish, I realize that centuries of execution and torture went on, not just under the Tudors.
It just seemed odd to juxtapose the story about the learned young king, Edward VI, with the vast amount of execution which went on under his family. If he had sensibility he must have been shocked by it, but maybe it was so common it didn't shock people then.

We have a tremendous amount of crime, including beheading, in these days, as with the cartels, so it occurs in our time too, but these are most often extra-legal situations.
Today is violent too. Fox news reports 11 men murdered over the weekend in Chicago.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

In The Kings and Queens of England, Ian Crofton wrote:

When he was king, Edward VI tried to get his half-sister Mary to abandon the Mass, but, as he disappointedly recorded in his journal, "She answered that her soul was God's and her faith she would not change, nor dissemble her opinion with contrary doings."
​

In The Other Tudors, Philippa Jones wrote:

Edward VI was set on a foreign marriage and alliance. For many years, it was hoped that his wife would be Mary, Queen of Scots. Then there were discussions with the French court, as a marriage was suggested between Edward and a French Princess, and he sent her a large diamond ring as a betrothal gift.
​

 

[An Ard Ri]

Who was the real Edward VI?

Who was the real Edward VI? | History Extra

 

[Meraude]

Would Edward have been able to marry Jane Grey, or did the church consider them too closely related? If Edward had married Jane and made her his co-ruler (and heir) before his death, would that have made her more acceptable as queen in her own right instead of Mary?

 

[Ish]

I won't speak with certainty, but other English royals had had marriages that were as close or closer, so I doubt there would have been problems in that regards.

Was there talks of Edward and Jane marrying? She was, after all, married to Lord Guildford Dudley during Edward's lifetime.

 

[lmnop]

Was there talks of Edward and Jane marrying? She was, after all, married to Lord Guildford Dudley during Edward's lifetime.

No.... It's been a few years since I read it, but trusting my fallible memory I want to say that in the first book of Alison Plowdon's quartet about Elizabeth, she mentioned that Jane was hopeful of a marriage but Edward, when he spoke of marriage at all, thought only of foreign princesses.

Apparently, there's a biography of Edward, written this century, which I think would be a really interesting read. And here we thought there was only the Prince and the Pauper.

 

[padams2359]

I have never read of anything regarding this, but at the age of 16, wouldn't a prospective marriage already have been in place?

 

[An Ard Ri]

I won't speak with certainty, but other English royals had had marriages that were as close or closer, so I doubt there would have been problems in that regards.

Was there talks of Edward and Jane marrying? She was, after all, married to Lord Guildford Dudley during Edward's lifetime.

The Lady Jane and Lord Guildford Dudley actually only married in May 1553,only a few weeks before the death of King Edward VI.

I had thought they married long before this date.

 

[Avalon]

Would Edward have been able to marry Jane Grey, or did the church consider them too closely related? If Edward had married Jane and made her his co-ruler (and heir) before his death, would that have made her more acceptable as queen in her own right instead of Mary?

Before the Church of England was established, Edward would have needed Papal dispensation because he and Jane were too closely related otherwise. It was quite a common practice in those times. However, with ties to Rome severed, he would have only needed a blessing from the Archbishop of Canterbury, if that (after all, Edward was the head of the Church of England).

In regards to making Jane his co-ruler, he simply couldn't have done that. Such a change in the line of succession would have required an Act of Parliament. Even Henry VIII, who basically changed his heir(s) every other day, always did it though parliamentary acts (Acts of Succession). That includes the line of succession he established right before his death: Edward and his heirs -> Mary and her heirs -> Elizabeth and her heirs - > descendants of Mary, Queen of France (Henry's younger sister).

If, however, Edward actually went ahead and made the Parliament acknowledge Jane as his legitimate heiress, then yes, Jane would have very strong claims and probably the support of the army. This said, Mary still had the support of ordinary people, so more likely than not, she would still become the Queen. The only difference would have been the timing and/or a possible civil war.

 

[Rudolph]

HistoricRoyalPalaces ‏@HRP_palaces
Today in 1547: Edward VI, Henry VIII's only son, is crowned at Westminster Abbey. He became King aged nine.

 

[An Ard Ri]

A look at Edward VI

Monarchy Rules: a look at Edward VI – Royal Central

 

[An Ard Ri]

To kidnap a king: the foiled plot to abduct Edward VI

To kidnap a king: the foiled plot to abduct Edward VI | History Extra

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Edward VI wrote his Devise for the Succession, stipulating that Lady Jane Grey rather than Princess Mary should inherit the throne. Would not any such change in the succession have to be approved by Parliament?

 

[Biri]

I heard a rumour that the Duke of Northumberland in fact forged the King's signature on this document.

 

[Countessmeout]

King Edward VI wrote his Devise for the Succession, stipulating that Lady Jane Grey rather than Princess Mary should inherit the throne. Would not any such change in the succession have to be approved by Parliament?

Yes the legality was shaky at best. He basically issued letters patent, which didn't have the power in truth to over rule an order of parliament. Edward (or the duke of Northumberland who some suggest forged it) had the support of his privy counsel. But there were many in parliament who did not approve of the will of his father, and the act of parliament, ignored. It made it easier for Mary to come back and take the throne.

Tudor Times | The Tudor Succession Problem: Edward VI

The changes seem to have been made finally on his death bed. Led to the suggestion the Duke either forged them or he forced an ill king to sign. If they had been drawn up earlier, possibly the parliament would have passed it.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

How long did it take Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford to buy off other executors and secure letters from Edward VI to give him complete control over the privy council?

 

[Countessmeout]

Within less then 2 months.

When Henry died his will didn't name a protectorate, which was the usual way things were handled. He simply named a regency counsel. 13 of the 16 members of the counsel voted, 4 days after the king died, to name Edward as protectorate (the other members weren't present for the vote). Of course the suggestion was that he paid off the others to vote in his favor.

By March (Henry died in late January) he had secured the letters from Edward to appoint the privy counsel.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The coronation procession of Edward VI on Shrove Sunday, February 20, 1547.
http://www.gettyimages.com/license/78951385