Edward VI of England Edward VI Edward VI, by William Scrots, c. 1550 King of England (more...) Reign 28 January 1547 – 6 July 1553 Coronation 20 February 1547 Predecessor Henry VIII Regent Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset (1547–1549) John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland (1549–1553) Successor Lady Jane Grey (disputed) or Mary I House House of Tudor Father Henry VIII Mother Jane Seymour Born 12 October 1537(1537-10-12) Hampton Court Palace, near London Edward VI (12 October 1537 – 6 July 1553) became King of England and Ireland on 28 January 1547 and was crowned on 20 Febru- ary at the age of nine.[1] The son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, Edward was the third monarch of the Tudor dynasty and England’s first Protestant ruler. During Edward’s reign, the realm was governed by a Regency Coun- cil, because he never reached maturity. The Council was led from 1547 to 1549 by his uncle Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somer- set, and from 1550 to 1553 by John Dudley, 1st Earl of Warwick, who in 1551 became 1st Duke of Northumberland. Edward’s reign was marked by economic problems, military withdrawal from Scotland and Boulogne-sur-Mer, and social unrest that in 1549 erupted into riot and rebellion. It also saw the transformation of the Anglican Church into a recognisably Protestant body.[2] Henry VIII had severed the link between the Church of England and Rome, and during Edward’s reign, Protestantism was established for the first time in England, with reforms that included the abolition of clerical celibacy and the mass, and the im- position of compulsory services in English. The architect of these reforms was Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, whose Book of Common Prayer has proved lasting. When Edward fell terminally ill in 1553, he and his Council drew up a "Devise for the Succession" in an attempt to prevent a Cath- olic backlash against the Protestant Reforma- tion. Edward named his cousin Lady Jane Grey as his heir and excluded his two half sis- ters, the Catholic Mary and Protestant Eliza- beth. On Edward’s death at the age of 15, the succession was disputed. Jane survived as queen for only nine days before the Privy Council proclaimed Mary, for whom the people had risen in support in the counties. As queen, Mary proceeded to undo many of Edward’s Protestant reforms, but Elizabeth’s religious settlement of 1559 was to secure his Protestant legacy. Early life Birth Prince Edward was born on 12 October 1537 at Hampton Court Palace, to the west of Lon- don.[4] He was the son of King Henry VIII by his third wife, Jane Seymour. Throughout the realm, the people greeted the birth of a male heir, "whom we hungered for so long",[5] with joy and relief. Te Deums were sung in churches, bonfires lit, and "their was shott at the Tower that night above two thousand gonnes".[6] Jane, who appeared to recover quickly from a prolonged labour, sent out pre-signed letters announcing the birth of "a Prince, conceived in most lawful matrimony between my Lord the King’s Majesty and us".[7] Edward was christened on 15 October, with Princess Mary as godmother and Prin- cess Elizabeth carrying the chrism, or baptis- mal cloth;[6] and the Garter King of Arms proclaimed him as Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester.[8] Jane Seymour, however, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 1 Prince Edward in 1539, by Hans Holbein the Younger. He holds a golden rattle that re- sembles a sceptre; and the Latin inscription urges him to equal or surpass his father.[3] suddenly fell ill on 23 October from pre- sumed postnatal complications, and she died the following night.[9] Henry VIII wrote to Francis I of France that "Divine Providence ... hath mingled my joy with bitterness of the death of her who brought me this happi- ness".[10] Edward was about nine when his father King Henry VIII died January 27,1547. Upbringing and education Edward was a healthy baby who suckled strongly from the first. His father was de- lighted with him; in May 1538, Henry was ob- served "dallying with him in his arms ... and so holding him in a window to the sight and great comfort of the people".[11] That September, the Lord Chancellor, Thomas, Lord Audley, reported Edward’s rapid growth and vigour;[12] and other accounts describe him as a tall and merry child. The tradition that Edward VI was a sickly boy has been challenged by some historians.[13] At the age of four, he fell ill with a life-threatening "quartan fever",[14] but, despite occasional illnesses and poor eyesight, he enjoyed generally good health until the last six months of his life.[15] Edward as Prince of Wales, 1546[16] Edward was placed in the care of Mar- garet Bryan, "lady mistress" of the prince’s household, and until the age of six he was brought up, as he put it later in his Chronicle, "among the women".[17] A formal royal household was established around him, at first under Sir William Sidney, and later un- der Sir Richard Page, the stepfather of Ed- ward Seymour’s wife, Anne Stanhope.[18] Henry demanded exacting standards of se- curity and cleanliness in his son’s household, stressing that Edward was "this whole realm’s most precious jewel".[19] Visitors de- scribed the prince, who was lavishly provided with toys and comforts, including his own troupe of minstrels, as a contented child.[20] From the age of six, Edward began his formal education under Richard Cox and John Cheke, concentrating, as he recalled himself, on "learning of tongues, of the scripture, of philosophy, and all liberal sciences";[21] he later also received tuition from Elizabeth’s tutor, Roger Ascham, among others, and in French from Jean Belmain.[22] In addition, he is known to have studied geometry and learned to play musical instruments, includ- ing the lute and the virginals. He collected From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 2 globes and maps and, according to coinage historian C. E. Challis, developed a grasp of monetary affairs that indicates a high intelli- gence. Edward’s religious education is as- sumed to have favoured the reforming agenda.[23] His religious establishment was probably chosen by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, a leading reformer; and both Cox and Cheke were "reformed" Catholics or Erasmians and later became Marian ex- iles.[24] By 1549, Edward had written a treat- ise on the pope as Antichrist and was making informed notes on theological controver- sies.[25] Many aspects of Edward’s religion were still essentially Catholic in his early years, including celebration of the mass and reverence for images and relics of the saints.[26] Both Edward’s sisters were attentive to their brother and often visited him—on one occasion, Elizabeth gave him a shirt "of her own working".[27] Edward "took special con- tent" in Mary’s company, though he disap- proved of her taste for foreign dances; "I love you most", he wrote to her in 1546.[28] In 1543, Henry invited his three children to spend Christmas with him, signalling his re- conciliation with his daughters, whom he had previously illegitimised and disinherited. The following spring, he restored them to their place in the succession with a Third Succes- sion Act, which also provided for a regency council during Edward’s minority.[29] This unaccustomed family harmony may have owed much to the influence of Henry’s new wife Catherine Parr,[30] of whom Edward soon became fond. He called her his "most dear mother" and in September 1546 wrote to her: "I received so many benefits from you that my mind can hardly grasp them".[31] Other children were brought to play with Edward, including the granddaughter of Ed- ward’s chamberlain Sir William Sidney, who in adulthood recalled the prince as "a marvel- lous sweet child, of very mild and generous condition".[33] Edward shared his formal edu- cation with sons of nobles, "appointed to at- tend upon him" in what was a form of mini- ature court.[34] Among these, Barnaby Fitzpatrick, the son of an Irish peer, became a close and lasting friend.[35] Edward was more devoted to his schoolwork than were his classmates and seems to have outshone them, motivated to do his "duty" and compete with his sister Elizabeth’s academic prowess, though Cox felt it necessary to beat him on at Portrait miniature of Edward by an unknown artist, c. 1543–46[32] least one occasion.[36] Edward’s surround- ings and possessions were regally splendid: his rooms were hung with costly Flemish tapestries, and his clothes, books, and cutlery were encrusted with precious jewels and gold.[37] Like his father, Edward was fascin- ated by military arts, and many of his por- traits show him wearing a gold dagger with a jewelled hilt, in imitation of Henry.[38] Ed- ward’s Chronicle enthusiastically details Eng- lish military campaigns against Scotland and France, and adventures such as John Dud- ley’s near capture at Musselburgh in 1547.[39] Rough wooing On 1 July 1543, Henry VIII had signed the Treaty of Greenwich with the Scots, sealing the peace with Edward’s betrothal to the seven-month-old Mary, Queen of Scots. The Scots were in a weak bargaining position after their defeat at Solway Moss the previ- ous November, and Henry, seeking to unite the two realms, stipulated that Mary be handed over to him to be brought up in Eng- land.[40] When the Scots repudiated the treaty in December 1543 and renewed their alliance with France, Henry was enraged. In April 1544, he ordered Edward’s uncle, Ed- ward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, to invade Scotland and "put all to fire and sword, burn Edinburgh town, so razed and defaced when you have sacked and gotten what ye can of it, as there may remain forever a perpetual From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 3 memory of the vengeance of God lightened upon [them] for their falsehood and disloy- alty".[41] Seymour responded with the most savage campaign ever launched by the Eng- lish against the Scots.[42] The war, which continued into Edward’s reign, has become known as "The Rough Wooing". Accession ’Edward VI and the Pope: An Allegory of the Reformation. This anonymous work of propa- ganda depicts the handing over of power from Henry VIII, who lies dying in bed, to Ed- ward VI, seated beneath a cloth of state with a slumping pope at his feet. In the top right of the picture is an image of men pulling down and smashing idols. At Edward’s side are his uncle the Lord Protector Edward Sey- mour, and members of the Privy Council.[43] Henry VIII died on 28 January 1547, when Edward was only nine. Those close to the throne, led by Edward Seymour and William Paget, agreed to delay the announcement of the king’s death until arrangements had been made for a smooth succession. Seymour and Sir Anthony Browne, the Master of the Horse, rode to collect Edward from Hertford and brought him to Enfield, where Princess Elizabeth was living. He and Elizabeth were then told of the death of their father and heard a reading of the will.[44] The Lord Chancellor, Thomas Wriothesley, announced Henry’s death to parliament on 31 January, and general proclamations of Edward’s suc- cession were ordered.[45] The new king was taken to the Tower of London, where he was welcomed with "great shot of ordnance in all places there about, as well out of the Tower as out of the ships".[46] The following day, the nobles of the realm made their obedience to Edward at the Tower, and Seymour was announced as Protector.[45] Henry VIII was buried at Windsor on 16 February, in the same tomb as Jane Seymour, as he had wished. Edward VI was crowned at Westminster Abbey four days later on Sunday 20 Febru- ary, the first coronation in England for al- most 40 years.[47] The ceremonies were shortened, because of the "tedious length of the same which should weary and be hurt- some peradventure to the King’s majesty, be- ing yet of tender age", and also because the Reformation had rendered some of them in- appropriate.[48] On the eve of the coronation, Edward progressed on horseback from the Tower to the Palace of Westminster through thronging crowds and pageants, many based on the pageants for a previous boy king, Henry VI.[49] He laughed at a Spanish tightrope walker who "tumbled and played many pretty toys" outside St Paul’s Cathed- ral.[50] At the coronation service, Cranmer af- firmed the royal supremacy and called Ed- ward a second Josiah,[51] urging him to con- tinue the reformation of the Church of Eng- land, "the tyranny of the Bishops of Rome banished from your subjects, and images re- moved".[52] After the service, Edward presided at a banquet in Westminster Hall, where, he recalled in his Chronicle, he dined with his crown on his head.[53] Somerset’s Protectorate Council of Regency Henry VIII’s will named sixteen executors, who were to act as Edward’s Council until he reached the age of 18. These executors were supplemented by twelve men "of counsail" who would assist the executors when called on.[54] The final state of Henry VIII’s will has been the subject of controversy. Some histor- ians suggest that those close to the king ma- nipulated either him or the will itself to en- sure a shareout of power to their benefit, both material and religious. In this reading, the composition of the Privy Chamber shifted towards the end of 1546 in favour of the re- forming faction.[55] In addition, two leading conservative Privy Councillors were removed from the centre of power. Stephen Gardiner was refused access to Henry during his last months. Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Nor- folk, found himself accused of treason; the day before the king’s death his vast estates were seized, making them available for From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 4 redistribution, and he spent the whole of Ed- ward’s reign in the Tower of London.[56] Oth- er historians have argued that Gardiner’s ex- clusion was based on non-religious matters, that Norfolk was not noticeably conservative in religion, that conservatives remained on the Council, and that the radicalism of men such as Sir Anthony Denny, who controlled the dry stamp that replicated the king’s sig- nature, is debatable.[57] Whatever the case, Henry’s death was followed by a lavish hand- out of lands and honours to the new power group.[58] The will contained an "unfulfilled gifts" clause, added at the last minute, which allowed Henry’s executors to freely distribute lands and honours to themselves and the court,[59] particularly to Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford, who became the Lord Protector of the Realm, Governor of the King’s Person, and the Duke of Somerset.[60] Edward VI’s uncle, Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, ruled England in the name of his nephew as Lord Protector from 1547 to 1549. In fact, Henry VIII’s will did not provide for the appointment of a Protector. It entrus- ted the government of the realm during his son’s minority to a Regency Council that would rule collectively, by majority decision, with "like and equal charge".[61] Neverthe- less, a few days after Henry’s death, on 4 February, the executors chose to invest al- most regal power in Edward Seymour.[62] Thirteen out of the sixteen (the others being absent) agreed to his appointment as Protect- or, which they justified as their joint decision "by virtue of the authority" of Henry’s will.[63] Seymour may have done a deal with some of the executors, who almost all received hand-outs.[64] He is known to have done so with William Paget, private secretary to Henry VIII,[65] and to have secured the support of Sir Anthony Browne of the Privy Chamber.[66] Seymour’s appointment was in keeping with historical precedent, [67] and his eligibil- ity for the role was reinforced by his military successes in Scotland and France. In March 1547, he secured letters patent from King Edward granting him the almost monarchical right to appoint members to the Privy Coun- cil himself and to consult them only when he wished.[68] In the words of historian G. R. Elton, "from that moment his autocratic sys- tem was complete".[69] He proceeded to rule largely by proclamation, calling on the Privy Council to do little more than rubber-stamp his decisions.[70] Somerset’s takeover of power was smooth and efficient. The imperial ambassador, Van der Delft, reported that he "governs everything absolutely", with Paget operating as his secretary, though he predicted trouble from John Dudley, who had recently been raised to Earl of Warwick in the share-out of honours.[71] In fact, in the early weeks of his Protectorate, Somerset was challenged only by the Chancellor, Thomas Wriothesley, whom the Earldom of Southampton had evid- ently failed to buy off, and by his own broth- er.[72] Wriothesley, a religious conservative, objected to Somerset’s assumption of mon- archical power over the Council. He then found himself abruptly dismissed from the chancellorship on charges of selling off some of his offices to delegates.[73] His removal forestalled the forming of factions within the Council. Thomas Seymour Somerset faced less manageable opposition from his younger brother Thomas Seymour, who has been described as a "worm in the bud".[74] As King Edward’s uncle, Thomas Seymour demanded the governorship of the king’s person and a greater share of power.[75] Somerset tried to buy his brother off with a barony, an appointment to the Lord Admiralship, and a seat on the Privy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 5 Council—but Thomas was bent on scheming for power. He began smuggling pocket money to King Edward, telling him that Somerset held the purse strings too tight, making him a "beggarly king".[76] He also urged him to throw off the Protector within two years and "bear rule as other kings do"; but Edward, schooled to defer to the Council, failed to co-operate.[77] In April, using Ed- ward’s support to circumvent Somerset’s op- position, Thomas Seymour secretly married Henry VIII’s widow Catherine Parr, whose Protestant household included the 11-year- old Lady Jane Grey and the 13-year-old Prin- cess Elizabeth.[78] In summer 1548, a pregnant Catherine Parr discovered Thomas Seymour embracing Princess Elizabeth.[79] As a result, Elizabeth was removed from Catherine Parr’s house- hold and transferred to Sir Anthony Denny’s. That September, Catherine Parr died in child- birth, and Thomas Seymour promptly re- sumed his attentions to Elizabeth by letter, planning to marry her. Elizabeth was recept- ive, but, like Edward, unready to agree to anything unless permitted by the Council.[80] In January 1549, the Council, led by John Dudley, who had just engineered the recall of Wriothesley, had Thomas Seymour arrested on various charges, including embezzlement at the Bristol mint. King Edward, whom Sey- mour was accused of planning to marry to Lady Jane Grey, himself testified about the pocket money.[81] Lack of clear evidence for treason ruled out a trial, so Seymour was condemned instead by an Act of Attainder and beheaded on 20 March 1549.[82] The ex- ecution of the Protector’s brother had at last given his enemies a chance to damage him. It was the latest of a series of disasters that had marked the Protector’s rule. From this time, Somerset’s own position was increasingly un- der threat.[83] War Somerset’s only undoubted skill was as a sol- dier, which he had proven on expeditions to Scotland and in the defence of Boulogne-sur- Mer in 1546. From the first, his main interest as Protector was the war against Scot- land.[84] After a crushing victory at the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in September 1547, he set up a network of garrisons in Scotland, stretching as far north as Dundee.[85] His ini- tial successes, however, were followed by a loss of direction, as his aim of uniting the realms through conquest became increas- ingly unrealistic. The Scots allied with France, who sent reinforcements for the de- fence of Edinburgh in 1548,[86] while Mary, Queen of Scots, was removed to France, where she was betrothed to the dauphin.[87] The cost of maintaining the Protector’s massive armies and his permanent garrisons in Scotland also placed an unsustainable bur- den on the royal finances.[88] A French attack on Boulogne in August 1549 at last forced Somerset to begin a withdrawal from Scot- land.[89] Rebellion During 1548, England was subject to social unrest. After April 1549, a series of armed re- volts broke out, fuelled by various religious and agrarian grievances. The two most seri- ous rebellions, which required major military intervention to put down, were in Devon and Cornwall and in Norfolk. The first, sometimes called the Prayer Book Rebellion, arose mainly from the imposition of church services in English, and the second, led by a trades- man called Robert Kett, mainly from the en- croachment of landlords on common grazing ground.[90] A complex aspect of the social un- rest was that the protestors believed they were acting legitimately against enclosing landlords with the Protector’s support, con- vinced that the landlords were the lawbreak- ers.[91] The same justification for outbreaks of un- rest was voiced throughout the country, not only in Norfolk and the west. The origin of the popular view of Somerset as sympathetic to the rebel cause lies partly in his series of sometimes liberal, often contradictory, pro- clamations,[92] and partly in the uncoordin- ated activities of the commissions he sent out in 1548 and 1549 to investigate grievances about loss of tillage, encroachment of large sheep flocks on common land, and similar is- sues.[93] Somerset’s commissions were led by an evangelical M.P. called John Hales, whose socially liberal rhetoric linked the issue of en- closure with Reformation theology and the notion of a godly commonwealth.[94] Local groups often assumed that the findings of these commissions entitled them to act against offending landlords themselves.[95] King Edward wrote in his Chronicle that the 1549 risings began "because certain From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 6 commissions were sent down to pluck down enclosures".[96] Whatever the popular view of Somerset, the disastrous events of 1549 were taken as evidence of a colossal failure of government, and the Council laid the responsibility at the Protector’s door.[97] In July 1549, Paget wrote to Somerset: "Every man of the council have misliked your proceedings ... would to God, that, at the first stir you had followed the matter hotly, and caused justice to be ministered in solemn fashion to the terror of others ...".[98] By that autumn, plans were afoot to eject Somerset as Protector. Fall of Somerset The sequence of events that led to Somer- set’s removal from power has often been called a coup d’état.[97] By 1 October, Somer- set had been alerted that his rule faced a ser- ious threat. He issued a proclamation calling for assistance, took possession of the king’s person, and withdrew for safety to the forti- fied Windsor Castle, where Edward wrote, "Me thinks I am in prison".[99] Meanwhile, a united Council published details of Somer- set’s government mismanagement. They made clear that the Protector’s power came from them, not from Henry VIII’s will. On 11 October, the Council had Somerset arrested and brought the king to Richmond.[97] Ed- ward summarised the charges against Somerset in his Chronicle: "ambition, vain- glory, entering into rash wars in mine youth, negligent looking on Newhaven, enriching himself of my treasure, following his own opinion, and doing all by his own authority, etc."[100] In February 1550, John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, emerged as the leader of the Council and, in effect, as Somerset’s suc- cessor. Although Somerset was released from the Tower and restored to the Council, he was executed for felony in January 1552 after scheming to overthrow Dudley’s regime.[101] Edward noted his uncle’s death in his Chron- icle: "the duke of Somerset had his head cut off upon Tower Hill between eight and nine o’clock in the morning".[102] Historians contrast the efficiency of Somerset’s takeover of power, in which they detect the organising skills of allies such as Paget, the "master of practices", with the subsequent ineptitude of his rule.[103] By au- tumn 1549, his costly wars had lost mo- mentum, the crown faced financial ruin, and riots and rebellions had broken out around the country. Until recent decades, Somerset’s reputation with historians was high, in view of his many proclamations that appeared to back the common people against a rapacious landowning class.[104] More recently, however, he has often been portrayed as an arrogant ruler, devoid of the political and ad- ministrative skills necessary for governing the Tudor state.[105] Northumberland’s regime In contrast, Somerset’s successor John Dud- ley, Earl of Warwick, made duke of Northum- berland in 1550, was once regarded by his- torians merely as a grasping schemer who cynically elevated and enriched himself at the expense of the crown.[106] Since the 1970s, the administrative and economic achievements of his regime have been recog- nised, and he has been credited with restor- ing the authority of the royal Council and re- turning the government to an even keel after the disasters of Somerset’s protectorate.[107] Nonetheless, that he shared Somerset’s am- bition, greed, and corruption is undis- puted.[108] John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, later 1st Duke of Northumberland, led the Privy Council after the downfall of Somerset. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 7 The Earl of Warwick’s rival for leadership of the new regime was Thomas Wriothesley, 1st Earl of Southampton, whose conservative supporters had allied with Dudley’s followers to create a unanimous Council which they, and observers such as the Emperor’s ambas- sador, expected to reverse Somerset’s policy of religious reform.[109] Southampton’s fac- tion intended to appoint the Catholic Princess Mary as regent for King Edward.[110] War- wick, on the other hand pinned his hopes on the king’s strong Protestantism and, claiming that Edward was old enough to rule in per- son, moved himself and his people closer to the king, taking control of the Privy Cham- ber.[111] Paget, accepting a barony, joined Warwick when he realised that a conservat- ive policy would not bring the Emperor onto the English side over Boulogne.[112] Southampton prepared a case for executing Somerset, aiming to discredit Warwick through Somerset’s statements that he had done all with Warwick’s cooperation. As a counter-move, Warwick convinced parliament to free Somerset, which it did on 14 January 1550. Warwick then had Southampton and his followers purged from the Council after winning the support of Council members in return for titles, and was made Lord Presid- ent of the Council and great master of the king’s household.[113] Although not called a Protector, he was now clearly the head of the government.[114] In accordance with his use of the king’s personal authority as the source of his own, Warwick encouraged the king to come to Council meetings, which enabled him to cite the king’s authority for his decisions.[115] Al- though Edward was precocious and able to understand much government business, his contributions during Warwick’s presidency probably amounted to no more than assent to decisions already taken. In Dale Hoak’s view, "Edward VI’s speeches and papers really present the somewhat pathetic figure of an articulate puppet far removed from the realit- ies of government".[116] His greatest influ- ence was in matters of religion, where the Council followed the strongly Protestant policy that Edward favoured.[117] The new duke of Northumberland’s mode of operation was very different from Somer- set’s. Careful to make sure he always com- manded a majority of councillors, he encour- aged a working council and used it to legitim- ate his authority. Lacking Somerset’s blood relationship with the king, he added mem- bers to the Council from his own faction in order to control it. He also added members of his own family to the royal household.[118] After a time, he insisted it was "some deroga- tion to his Majesty’s honour and royal author- ity" for the Council to countersign his letters and so gained control of Edward’s name.[119] He saw that to achieve personal dominance, he needed total procedural control of the Council.[120] In the words of historian John Guy, "Like Somerset, he became quasi-king; the difference was that he managed the bur- eaucracy on the pretence that Edward had assumed full sovereignty, whereas Somerset had asserted the right to near-sovereignty as Protector".[121] Warwick’s war policies were more prag- matic than Somerset’s, and they have earned him criticism for weakness. In 1550, he signed a peace treaty with France that agreed to withdrawal from Boulogne, re- called all English garrisons from Scotland, and cancelled Edward’s betrothal to Mary, Queen of Scots, in favour of one with Henry II’s daughter Elisabeth.[122] In practice, he realised that England could no longer sup- port the cost of wars.[123] At home, he took measures to police local unrest. In order to forestall future rebellions, he kept permanent representatives of the crown in the localities, including lords lieutenant, who commanded military forces and reported back to central government.[124] Warwick also tackled the disastrous state of the kingdom’s finances, drawing on the tal- ents of Thomas Smith, William Cecil, and Wil- liam Paulet, and on the financial advice of men such as Walter Mildmay and Thomas Gresham.[125] However, his regime did not take action until after it had succumbed to the temptations of a quick profit by further debasing the coinage.[126] The economic dis- aster that resulted handed the initiative to the experts, and the debasement was re- versed. By 1552, confidence in the coinage was restored, prices fell, and trade at last im- proved. Though a full economic recovery was not achieved until Elizabeth’s reign, its ori- gins lay in the Duke of Northumberland’s policies.[127] The regime also cracked down on the widespread embezzlement of govern- ment finances and carried out a thorough re- view of revenue collection practices which has been called "one of the more remarkable achievements of Tudor administration".[128] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 8 Reformation In the matter of religion, the regime of Northumberland followed the same policy as that of Somerset, supporting an increasingly vigorous programme of reform.[129] Although Edward VI’s practical influence on govern- ment was limited, his intense Protestantism made a reforming administration obligatory; his succession was managed by the reform- ing faction, who continued in power throughout his reign. The man Edward trus- ted most, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, introduced a series of religious reforms which revolutionised the English church from one that, while rejecting papal supremacy, remained essentially Catholic, to one that was institutionally Protestant. The confiscation of church property that had be- gun under Henry VIII resumed under Ed- ward—notably with the dissolution of the chantries—to the great monetary advantage of the crown and the new owners of the seized property.[130] Church reform was therefore as much a political as a religious policy under Edward VI.[131] By the end of his reign, the church had been financially ruined, with much of the property of the bish- ops transferred into lay hands.[132] The religious convictions of both Somerset and Northumberland have proved elusive for historians, who are divided on the sincerity of their Protestantism.[133] There is less doubt, however, about the religious devotion—some have called it bigotry[134]—of King Edward, who was said to have read twelve chapters of scripture daily and enjoyed sermons, and was commemorated by John Foxe as a "godly imp".[135] Edward was depicted during his life and afterwards as a new Josiah, the bib- lical king who destroyed the idols of Baal.[136] He could be priggish in his anti- popery and once asked Catherine Parr to per- suade Princess Mary "to attend no longer to foreign dances and merriments which do not become a most Christian princes".[137] Ed- ward’s biographer Jennifer Loach cautions, however, against accepting too readily the pi- ous image of Edward handed down by the re- formers, as in John Foxe’s influential Acts and Monuments, where a woodcut depicts the young king listening to a sermon by Hugh Latimer.[138] In the early part of his life, Ed- ward conformed to the prevailing Catholic practices, including attendance at mass: but he became convinced, under the influence of Cranmer and the reformers among his tutors and courtiers, that "true" religion should be imposed in England.[139] Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, exerted a powerful influence on Edward’s Protestantism. The English Reformation advanced under pressure from two directions: from the tradi- tionalists on the one hand and the zealots on the other, who led incidents of iconoclasm (image-smashing) and complained that re- form did not go far enough. Reformed doc- trines were made official, such as justifica- tion by faith alone and communion for laity as well as clergy in both kinds, of bread and wine.[140] The Ordinal of 1550 replaced the divine ordination of priests with a government-run appointment system, author- ising ministers to preach the gospel and ad- minister the sacraments rather than, as be- fore, "to offer sacrifice and celebrate mass both for the living and the dead".[141] Cran- mer set himself the task of writing a uniform liturgy in English, detailing all weekly and daily services and religious festivals, to be made compulsory in the first Act of Uniform- ity of 1549.[142] The Book of Common Prayer of 1549, intended as a compromise, was at- tacked by traditionalists for dispensing with many cherished rituals of the liturgy, such as From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 9 the elevation of the bread and wine,[143] while some reformers complained about the retention of too many "popish" elements, in- cluding vestiges of sacrificial rites at commu- nion.[142] The prayer book was also opposed by many senior Catholic clerics, including Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London, who were both imprisoned in the Tower and, along with others, deprived of their sees.[144] After 1551, the Reformation advanced fur- ther, with the approval and encouragement of Edward, who began to exert more personal influence in his role as Supreme Head of the church.[145] The new changes were also a re- sponse to criticism from such reformers as John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, and the Scot John Knox, who was employed as a min- ister in Newcastle under the Duke of Northumberland and whose preaching at court prompted the king to oppose kneeling at communion.[146] Cranmer was also influ- enced by the views of the continental re- former Martin Bucer, who died in England in 1551, by Peter Martyr, who was teaching at Oxford, and by other foreign theologians.[147] The progress of the Reformation was further speeded by the appointment of more re- formers as bishops.[148] In the winter of 1551–52, Cranmer rewrote the Book of Com- mon Prayer in less ambiguous reformist terms, revised canon law, and prepared a doctrinal statement, the Forty-two Articles, to clarify the practice of the reformed reli- gion, particularly in the divisive matter of the communion service.[149] Cranmer’s formula- tion of the reformed religion, finally divesting the communion service of any notion of the real presence of God in the bread and the wine, effectively abolished the mass.[150] Ac- cording to Elton, the publication of Cran- mer’s revised prayer book in 1552, supported by a second Act of Uniformity, "marked the arrival of the English Church at protestant- ism".[151] The prayer book of 1552 remains the foundation of the Church of England’s services.[152] However, Cranmer was unable to implement all these reforms once it be- came clear in spring 1553 that King Edward, upon whom the whole Reformation in Eng- land depended, was dying.[153] Succession crisis Device for the succession In his "devise for the succession", Edward passed over his sisters’ claims to the throne in favour of Lady Jane Grey. In the fourth line, he altered "L Janes heires masles" to "L Jane and her heires masles". During the winter of 1552–53, Edward VI be- came ill, and by May his condition, which in- cluded chronic coughing and swollen legs and head, was grave.[154] The prospect of the king’s death and the succession of his Cathol- ic sister Mary threatened disaster to those around the king. It placed in jeopardy not only the English Reformation but the power- ful and lucrative positions enjoyed by Ed- ward’s Council and officers. For these reas- ons, an attempt was made in June 1553, shortly before Edward’s death, to subvert the succession. Henry VIII had appeared to es- tablish the convention that an English king could dictate his own heirs and set aside the traditional rules of descent. Edward there- fore wrote out several drafts of a document headed "My devise for the succession" in which he passed over the claims of the prin- cesses 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 dis- play regal".[155] Northumberland and his sup- porters 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 council- lors, peers, archbishops, bishops, and sher- iffs, many of whom later claimed that they had been bullied into doing so by Northum- berland.[156] In the atmosphere of approach- ing uncertainty, Northumberland further se- cured his ties to the crown by betrothing a brother, son, and daughter to three From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 10 individuals high in the line of succession to the throne.[157] He also sealed an alliance with the French, banking on their support in the event of an armed challenge from Prin- cess Mary.[158] The plan to exclude Princess Mary from the succession shows that those at the centre of power had lost touch with political real- ity.[159] Though Henry VIII had tampered with the succession, his exclusion of his sis- ter Margaret’s heirs was understandable be- cause her heirs were aliens. Edward’s device to alter the succession was not only unconsti- tutional in its violation of Henry VIII’s Third Succession Act of 1543 but was demonstrably the product of hurried and illogical think- ing.[160] 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.[161] Those who drew up the legal documents failed to make the same change for her two sisters, who, inconsist- ently, remained excluded from the succession in favour of their male heirs.[162] 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 prin- cesses Mary and Elizabeth. Why the Protest- ant 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 bas- tardy, Elizabeth, who had once been bastard- ised herself, had to be barred for the same reason.[163] Whether the device was Ed- ward’s own idea or the result of manipulation by his advisors has been a matter of debate for historians.[164] In practice, Edward’s aims and those of Northumberland and his follow- ers had become identical by 1553. Edward, who believed that his word was law,[165] un- derstood and accepted the proposals for the succession, even if they were not his own idea.[166] 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 succes- sion and place Lady Jane Grey on the throne.[167] 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".[168] Although the marriage between Lady Jane Grey and Guild- ford 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 arrange- ments for these alliances a year earlier, be- fore Edward became ill.[169] However, Ed- ward 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".[170] 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 him- self.[171] Illness and death Edward’s illness began in January 1553 with a fever and cough that gradually worsened. The imperial ambassador, Scheyfve, reported that "he suffers a good deal when the fever is upon him, especially from a difficulty in drawing his breath, which is due to the com- pression of the organs on the right side ... I opine that this is a visitation and sign from God".[172] Edward felt well enough in early April to take the air in the park at Westmin- ster and to move to Greenwich, but by the end of the month he had weakened again. Scheyfve, who had an informant in the king’s household, wrote that “the matter he ejects from his mouth is sometimes coloured a greenish yellow and black, sometimes pink, like the colour of blood”.[173] In May, ul- cers—possibly bedsores—spread across his body, and his doctors believed he was suffer- ing from "a suppurating tumour" of the lung.[174] Members of the Council and other nobles began arming themselves for the troubles ahead; Windsor Castle and the south coast, among other places, were guarded and prepared for the worst; forces in the Tower and the city were strengthened, and naval vessels massed in the Thames.[175] By mid- June, the doctors were admitting that Ed- ward’s life was beyond recovery. After this time, his legs became so swollen that he had to lie on his back, and he lost the strength to From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 11 resist the disease. To his tutor John Cheke, he whispered "I am glad to die".[176] Edward made his final appearance in pub- lic on 1 July, when he showed himself at his window in Greenwich Palace, horrifying those who saw him by his "thin and wasted" condition. During the next two days, large crowds arrived hoping to see the king again, but on the 3rd, they were told that the weath- er was too chilly for him to appear. Edward died at the age of 15 at Greenwich Palace on 6 July 1553. According to John Foxe’s le- gendary account of his death, his last words were: "I am faint; Lord have mercy upon me, and take my spirit".[177] He was buried in Henry VII Lady Chapel at Westminster Abbey on 8 August 1553, with reformed rites per- formed by Thomas Cranmer. The procession was led by “a grett company of chylderyn in ther surples” and watched by Londoners “wepyng and lamenting”; the funeral chariot, draped in cloth of gold, was topped by an ef- figy of Edward, with crown, sceptre, and garter.[178] At the same time, Queen Mary at- tended a mass for his soul in the Tower, where Jane Grey was by then imprisoned. The cause of Edward VI’s death is not cer- tain. As with many royal deaths in the 16th century, rumours of poisoning abounded, but no evidence has been found to support these.[179] The Duke of Northumberland, whose unpopularity was underlined by the events that followed Edward’s death, was widely believed to have ordered the imagined poisoning.[180] Another theory held that Ed- ward had been poisoned by Catholics seeking to bring Mary to the throne.[181] The surgeon who opened Edward’s chest after his death found that "the disease where- of his majesty died was the disease of the lungs".[182] The Venetian ambassador repor- ted that Edward had died of consumption—in other words, tuberculosis—a diagnosis accep- ted by many historians.[183] Skidmore be- lieves that Edward contracted the tuberculos- is after a bout of measles and smallpox in 1552 that suppressed his natural immunity to the disease.[182] Loach suggests instead that his symptoms were typical of acute bron- chopneumonia, leading to a "suppurating pul- monary infection", septicaemia, and kidney failure.[154] Queen Jane and Queen Mary Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed queen by the Privy Council four days after Edward’s death. Princess Mary, who had visited Edward in February, was fully aware of the progress of her brother’s illness and of the plot to trans- fer the succession to Jane Grey. She main- tained contact with Emperor Charles V and his ambassadors, who advised her to accept the throne even if it were offered to her on condition she made no change in religion. Two days before Edward’s death, she was summoned to court. Instead, she left Hun- sdon House, near London, and sped to her es- tate at Kenninghall in Norfolk, fearing a trap.[184] Northumberland sent ships to the Norfolk coast to prevent her escape or the ar- rival of reinforcements from the continent. He delayed the announcement of the king’s death while he gathered his forces, and Jane Grey, who may not have been told of Ed- ward’s device until this moment, was taken to the Tower on 10 July.[185] Later that day, she was proclaimed queen in the streets of London, to murmurings of discontent. Northumberland now pressed Jane to make his son Guildford Dudley king, which, accord- ing to her own account, she refused to do. The Privy Council received a message from Mary asserting her "right and title" to the throne and commanding that the Council pro- claim her queen, as she had already From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 12 proclaimed herself.[186] The Council replied that Jane was queen by Edward’s authority and that Mary, by contrast, was illegitimate and supported only by "a few lewd, base people".[187] Mary I, by Antonis Mor, 1554 Northumberland soon realised that he had miscalculated drastically, not least in failing to secure Mary’s person before Edward’s death.[188] Although many of those who ral- lied to Mary were conservatives hoping for the defeat of Protestantism, her supporters also included many legitimists, for whom her lawful claim to the throne overrode religious considerations.[189] Northumberland was ob- liged to relinquish control of a nervous Coun- cil in London and launch an unplanned pur- suit of Mary into East Anglia, from where news was arriving of her growing support, which included a number of nobles and gen- tlemen and "innumerable companies of the common people".[190] Northumberland marched out of London with three thousand men, reaching Cambridge on 14 July; mean- while, Mary rallied her forces at Framling- ham Castle in Suffolk, gathering an army of nearly twenty thousand by 19 July.[191] See- ing his troops melt away in support of Mary, Northumberland sent desperate messages to the French pleading for assistance, promising them Calais, among other inducements. It now dawned on the Privy Council that it had made a terrible mistake. When news reached the councillors in the Tower that even the Norfolk fleet had declared for Mary, they abandoned Northumberland and offered a reward for his arrest.[192] On 19 July, the Council completed its turnabout by publicly proclaiming Mary as queen; and Jane’s nine- day reign came to an end. The proclamation triggered wild rejoicing throughout Lon- don.[193] Stranded in Cambridge, Northum- berland had no alternative, as a member of the Council, but to proclaim Mary him- self.[194] William Paget and the Earl of Arundel rode to Framlingham to beg Mary’s pardon, and Arundel arrested Northumber- land on 24 July. The duke was beheaded on 22 August, shortly after renouncing Protest- antism.[195] His recantation dismayed his daughter-in-law, Jane, who followed him to the scaffold on 12 February 1554, after her father’s involvement in Wyatt’s rebellion.[196] Protestant legacy Hugh Latimer preaching to King Edward from the pulpit in the privy garden at the Palace of Whitehall. The woodcut was pub- lished in John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments in 1563.[197] Although Edward reigned for only six years and died at the age of fifteen, his reign made a lasting contribution to the English Reforma- tion and the structure of the Church of Eng- land.[198] The last decade of Henry VIII’s reign had seen a partial stalling of the Re- formation, a drifting back to more conservat- ive values.[199] By contrast, Edward’s reign saw radical progress in the Reformation. In From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 13 those six years, the Church transferred from an essentially Roman Catholic liturgy and structure to one that is usually identified as Protestant.[2] In particular, the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal of 1550, and Cranmer’s Forty-two Articles formed the basis for English Church prac- tices that continue to this day.[200] Edward himself fully approved these changes, and though they were the work of reformers such as Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, and Nicholas Ridley, backed by Edward’s determ- inedly evangelical Council, the fact of the king’s religion was a catalyst in the accelera- tion of the Reformation during his reign.[201] Queen Mary’s attempts to undo the re- forming work of her brother’s reign faced major obstacles. Despite her belief in the papal supremacy, she ruled constitutionally as the Supreme Head of the English Church, a contradiction under which she bridled.[202] She found herself entirely unable to restore the vast number of ecclesiastical properties handed over or sold to private landown- ers.[203] Although she burned a string of leading church radicals, many reformers either went into exile or remained subvers- ively active in England during her reign, pro- ducing a torrent of reforming propaganda that she was unable to stem.[204] Neverthe- less, Protestantism was not yet "printed in the stomachs" of the English people,[205] and had Mary lived longer, her Catholic recon- struction might have succeeded, leaving Ed- ward’s reign, rather than hers, as a historical aberration.[206] On Mary’s death in 1558, the English Re- formation resumed its course, and most of the reforms instituted during Edward’s reign were reinstated in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. Queen Elizabeth replaced Mary’s councillors and bishops with ex-Edwardians, such as William Cecil, Northumberland’s former secretary, and Richard Cox, Edward’s old tutor, who preached an anti-Catholic ser- mon at the opening of parliament in 1558.[207] Parliament passed an Act of Uni- formity the following spring that restored, with modifications, Cranmer’s prayer book of 1552;[208] and the Thirty-nine Articles of 1563 were largely based on Cranmer’s Forty- two Articles. The theological developments of Edward’s reign provided a vital source of ref- erence for Elizabeth’s religious policies, though the internationalism of the Edwardian Reformation was never revived.[209] Ancestry See also • Cultural depictions of Edward VI of England Notes [1] Henry VIII had replaced the style "Lord of Ireland" with "King of Ireland" in 1541; Edward also maintained the English claim to the French throne but did not rule France. See Scarisbrick 1971, pp. 548–49, and Lydon 1998, p. 119. [2] ^ The article follows the majority of historians in using the term "Protestant" for the Church of England as it stood by the end of Edward’s reign. However, a minority prefer the terms "evangelical" or "new". In this view, as expressed by Diarmaid MacCulloch, it is "premature to use the label ’Protestant’ for the English movement of reform in the reigns of Henry and Edward, even though its priorities were intimately related to what was happening in central Europe. A description more true to the period would be ’evangelical’, a word which was indeed used at the time in various cognates". MacCulloch 2002, p. 2 [3] Foister 2006, p. 100 [4] Loach 1999, p. 4 [5] Hugh Latimer, bishop of Worcester, quoted by Erickson 1978, p. 181 [6] ^ Loach 1999, pp. 5–6 [7] Starkey 2004, p. 607 [8] Erickson 1978, p. 182 [9] Loach 1999, pp. 6–7; Skidmore 2007, p. 19. Claims that Edward was born by caesarian section came from uninformed or hostile sources and are now doubted. Jane was reported as recovering quickly at first. Some commentators have assumed her death was caused by puerperal fever, which cannot be ruled out, though the suddenness of her delayed illness and death do not correspond with the symptoms. Edward’s biographer Jennifer Loach, followed by Chris Skidmore, believes she may have retained parts of the placenta in her womb, resulting in a haemorrhage. [10]Skidmore 2007, p. 20 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 14 [11]Loach 1999, p. 8 [12]Loach 1999, p. 8 [13]Elton 1977, p. 372; Loach 1999, p. 161; MacCulloch 2002, p. 21 [14]Skidmore 2007, p. 27. A fever recurring about every four days, today usually associated with malaria. [15]Skidmore 2007, pp. 33, 177, 223–34, 260. Edward was also ill in 1550 and "of the measles and the smallpox" in 1552. [16]Strong, 92; Hearn, 50. The portrait shows the Prince of Wales’s feathers and crown on the pendant jewel. [17]Skidmore 2007, p. 22; Jordan 1968, pp. 37–38 [18]Loach 1999, p. 9 [19]Skidmore 2007, p. 23; Jordan 1968, pp. 38–39 [20]Loach 1999, pp. 9–11 [21]Loach 1999, pp. 11–12; Jordan 1968, p. 42. For example, he read biblical texts, Cato, Aesop’s Fables, and Vives’s Satellitium Vivis, which had been written for his sister Mary. [22]Loach 1999, p. 13. He also learned Spanish and Italian. [23] Jordan 1968, p. 40; MacCulloch 2002, p. 8 [24] Jordan 1968, p. 41 [25]Loach 1999, pp. 13–16; MacCulloch 2002, pp. 26–30 [26]Skidmore 2007, p. 38 [27]Skidmore 2007, p. 26 [28]Skidmore 2007, pp. 38–37; Loach 1999, p. 16 [29]Mackie 1952, pp. 413–14; Guy 1988, p. 196. Henry made the recognition of his daughters conditional on approved marriages, among other things. He reserved the choosing of the regency council for his will. [30]Starkey 2004, p. 720 [31]Skidmore 2007, p. 34 [32]This miniature, formerly attributed to Hans Holbein the Younger and one of several versions derived from the same pattern, is now thought likely to be by a follower of William Scrots. The background inscription gives Edward’s age as six, but this has been doubted after x-rays of the underpainting. See Strong 1969, pp. 92–93, and Rowlands 1985, pp. 235–36. [33]Skidmore 2007, pp. 28–29 [34]Skidmore 2007, p. 31 [35] Jordan 1968, p. 44 [36]Skidmore 2007, pp. 36–38; Jordan 1968, p. 43 [37]Skidmore 2007, pp. 35–36 [38]Skidmore 2007, p. 36; Strong 1969, p. 92. Such portraits were modelled on Holbein’s depiction of Henry VIII for a wall-painting at Whitehall in 1537, in which Henry confronts the viewer wearing a dagger. See Remigius van Leemput’s 1667 copy of the mural, which was destroyed in a fire in 1698. [39]Loach 1999, pp. 53–54 [40]Skidmore 2007, p. 30 [41]Wormald 2001, p. 58 [42] "His detailed reports to his master are a hideous record of fire and bloodshed, chronicled in the most factual and laconic manner." Wormald 2001, p. 59 [43]Aston 1993; Loach 1999, p. 187; Hearn 1995, pp. 75–76 [44] Jordan 1968, pp. 51–52; Loades 2004, p. 28 [45]^ Loach 1999, p. 29 [46] Jordan 1968, p. 52 [47]Loach 1999, pp. 30–38 [48] Jordan 1968, pp. 65–66; Loach 1999, pp. 35–37 [49]Loach 1999, p. 33 [50]Skidmore 2007, p. 59 [51]Skidmore 2007, p. 61; MacCulloch 2002, p. 62 [52] Jordan 1968, p. 67 [53] Jordan 1968, pp. 65–69; Loach 1999, pp. 29–38 [54]Loach 1999, pp. 17–18; Jordan 1968, p. 56 [55]Starkey 2002, pp. 130–145 [56]Starkey 2002, pp. 130–145; Elton 1977, pp. 330–31 [57]Loach 1999, pp. 19–25. In addressing these views, Loach cites, among others: G. Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic: the Life of Stephen Gardiner (Oxford, 1990), 231–37; Susan Brigden, "Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, and the Conjoured League", Historical Journal, xxxvii (1994), 507–37; and Eric Ives, "Henry VIII’s Will: A Forensic Conundrum", Historical Journal (1992), 792–99. [58]Loach 1999, pp. 19–25 [59]Starkey 2002, p. 142; Elton 1977, p. 332. David Starkey describes this distribution of benefits as typical of "the shameless back-scratching of the alliance"; G. R. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 15 Elton calls the changes to the will "convenient". [60]Loach 1999, pp. 19–25 [61]Starkey 2002, pp. 138–39; Alford 2002, p. 69. The existence of a council of executors alongside the Privy Council was rationalised in March when the two became one, incorporating the executors and most of their appointed assistants and adding Thomas Seymour, who had protested at his exclusion from power. [62]MacCulloch 2002, p. 7; Alford 2002, p. 65 [63]Starkey 2002, pp. 138–39; Alford 2002, p. 67 [64]Loach 1999, pp. 26–27; Elton 1962, p. 203 [65] In 1549, Paget was to remind Seymour: "Remember what you promised me in the gallery at Westminster before the breath was out of the body of the king that dead is. Remember what you promised immediately after, devising with me concerning the place which you now occupy ... and that was to follow mine advice in all your proceedings more than any other man’s". Quoted in Guy 1988, p. 211 [66]Alford 2002, pp. 67–68 [67]Alford 2002, pp. 49–50, 91–92; Elton 1977, p. 333. Uncles of the king had been made Protector in 1422 and 1483 during the minorities of Henry VI and Edward V (though not also Governor of the King’s Person, as Seymour’s brother Thomas, who coveted the role for himself, pointed out). [68]Alford 2002, p. 70 ; Jordan 1968, pp. 73–75. In 1549, William Paget described him as king in all but name. [69]Elton 1977, pp. 334, 338 [70]Alford 2002, p. 66 [71] Jordan 1968, pp. 69, 76–77; Skidmore 2007, pp. 64–63 [72]Elton 1977, p. 333 [73]Loades 2004, pp. 33–34; Elton 1977, p. 333 [74]Loades 2004, p. 34 [75]Elton 1977, pp. 333, 346. Some historians believe that John Dudley, who was to challenge Somerset in 1549, encouraged Thomas Seymour to make these demands. [76]Loades 204, p. 36 [77]Loades 2004, pp. 36–37; Brigden 2000, p. 182 [78]Erickson 1978, p. 234 [79]Somerset 1997, p. 23 [80]Loades 2004, pp. 37–38 [81]Loades 2004, pp. 40–41; Alford 2002, pp. 96–97 [82]Alford 2002, pp. 91–97 [83]Elton 1977, pp. 346–47 [84]Brigden 2000, p. 183; MacCulloch 2002, p. 42 [85]Mackie 1952, p. 484 [86]Mackie 1952, p. 485 [87]Wormald 2001, p. 62; Loach 1999, pp. 52–53. The dauphin was the future Francis II of France, son of Henry II of France. [88]Brigden 2000, p. 183 [89]Elton 1977, pp. 340–41 [90]Loach 1999, pp. 70–83 [91]Elton 1977, pp. 347–350; Loach 1999, pp. 66–67, 86. For example, in Hereford, a man was recorded as saying that "by the king’s proclamation all enclosures were to be broken up". [92]Loach 1999, pp. 60–61, 66–68, 89; Elton 1962, p. 207. Some proclamations expressed sympathy for the victims of enclosure and announced action; some condemned the destruction of enclosures and associated riots; another announced pardons for those who had destroyed enclosures by mistake ("of folly and of mistaking") after misunderstanding the meaning of proclamations, so long as they were sorry. [93]Loach 1999, pp. 61–66. [94]MacCulloch 2002, pp. 49–51; Dickens 1967, p. 310 [95] "Their aim was not to bring down government, but to help it correct the faults of local magistrates and identify the ways in which England could be reformed." MacCulloch 2002, p. 126 [96]Loach 1999, p. 85 [97]^ Elton 1977, p. 350 [98]Loach 1999, p. 87 [99]Brigden 2000, p. 192 [100]Quoted in Loach 1999, p. 91. By "Newhaven" is meant Ambleteuse, near Boulogne. [101]Guy 1988, pp. 212–15; Loach 1999, pp. 101–102 [102]Loach 1999, p. 102 [103]MacCulloch 2002, p. 104; Dickens 1967, p. 279 [104]Elton 1977, p. 333n; Alford 2002, p. 65. A. F. Pollard took this line in the early From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 16 20th century, echoed later by Edward VI’s 1960s biographer W. K. Jordan, among others. The revisionary approach was initiated by M. L. Bush and Dale Hoak in the 1970s. [105]Elton 1977, pp. 334–350 [106]Hoak 1980, pp. 31–32; MacCulloch 2002, p. 42 [107]Alford 2002, p. 25; Hoak 1980, pp. 42, 51 [108]Loach 1999, p. 114; MacCulloch 2002, p. 55 [109]Loach 1999, p. 92 [110]Elton 1977, p. 351; Hoak 1980, p. 47 [111]Brigden 2000, p. 193 [112]Elton 1977, p. 351 [113]Guy 1988, p. 213; Hoak 1980, pp. 38–39. Hoak explains that the office of Lord President gave its holder the right to create and dismiss councillors, as well as to call and dissolve Council meetings. [114]Elton 1977, pp. 350–352 [115]Elton 1977, p. 354; Loach 1999, p. 100; Skidmore 2007, p. 246. Loach, followed by Skidmore, contends that Edward did not attend the Privy Council itself but a special committee created for him. [116]Hoak 1980, p. 43 [117]Elton 1977, pp. 354, 371 [118]Loach 1999, p. 94. [119]Guy 1988, p. 215 [120]Hoak 1980, pp. 36–37 [121]Guy 1988, p. 215 [122]Guy 1988, pp. 218–19; Loach 1999, p. 108. Edward sent Elisabeth a "fair diamond" from Catherine Parr’s collection. [123]Loach 1999, p. 113; MacCulloch 2002, p. 55 [124]Elton 1977, p. 355; Loach 1999, p. 105 [125]Elton 1977, p. 355 [126]Loach 1999, p. 110; Hoak 1980, p. 41 [127]Elton 1977, p. 356 [128]Elton 1977, pp. 357–58 [129]MacCulloch 2002, p. 56 [130]Dickens 1967, pp. 287–93 [131]Elton 1962, pp. 204–205; MacCulloch 2002, p. 8 [132]Elton 1962, p. 210 [133]Haigh 1993, pp. 169–171; Elton 1962, p. 210; Guy 1988, p. 219; Loades 2004, p. 135; Skidmore 2007, pp. 286–87. Northumberland was to renounce Protestantism before his execution, but this may have been an attempt to save his neck. [134]Mackie 1952, p. 524; Elton 1977, p. 354 [135]Brigden 2000, p. 180; Skidmore 2007, p. 6 [136]MacCulloch 2002, p. 14 [137]Skidmore 2007, p. 38 [138]Loach 1999, pp. 180–81; MacCulloch 2002, pp. 21–29. Loach points out, following Jordan, that Edward’s Chronicle records nothing of his religious views and mentions no sermons; MacCulloch counters that Edward’s notebook of sermons, which was once archived and documented, has since been lost. [139]Brigden 2000, pp. 180–81 [140]Brigden 2000, pp. 188–89 [141]Mackie 1952, p. 517; Elton 1977, p. 360; Haigh 1993, p. 168 [142]̂ Elton 1977, p. 345 [143]Brigden 2000, p. 190; Haigh 1993, p. 174; Dickens 1967, p. 305. One of the grievances of the western prayer-book rebels in 1549 was that the new service seemed “like a Christmas game". [144]Brigden 2000, p. 193 [145]Brigden 2000, p. 195 [146]Elton 1977, pp. 361, 365 [147]Elton 1977, pp. 361–62; Haigh 1993, pp. 179–80; Dickens 1967, pp. 318–25, 40–42 [148]Haigh 1993, p. 178. Notable among the new bishops were John Ponet, who succeeded Gardiner at Winchester, Myles Coverdale at Exeter, and John Hooper at Gloucester. [149]Dickens 1967, pp. 340–49 [150]Brigden 2000, pp. 196–97; Elton 1962, p. 212 [151]"The Prayer Book of 1552, the Ordinal of 1550, which it took over, the act of uniformity which made the Prayer Book the only legal form of worship, and the Forty-two Articles binding upon all Englishmen, clerical and lay—these between them comprehended the protestant Reformation in England." Elton 1962, p. 212 [152]Elton 1977, p. 365 [153]Elton 1977, p. 366. Edward approved the Forty-two Articles in June 1553, too late for them to be introduced—they later became the basis of Elizabeth I’s Thirty- nine Articles of 1563. Cranmer’s revision of canon law, Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, was never authorised by king or parliament. [154]̂ Loach 1999, pp. 159–61 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 17 [155]Mackie 1952, pp. 522–23; Guy 1988, p. 226; Skidmore 2007, pp. 248–49 [156]Loach 1999, p. 165; Hoak 1980, p. 49. Bribery also played a role in the amassing of signatures. In Hoak’s view, "The ’Devise’ to alter the succession is consistent with the decisive political realism of a man who, understanding the treasonable risks, made everyone else in high office co-partners in a crime less unacceptable than the accession of a papist”. [157]Mackie 1952, p. 524; Jordan 1970, pp. 516–17 [158]Loach 1999, p. 166 [159]Elton 1977, pp. 374–75; Mackie 1952, p. 524 [160]Jordan 1970, p. 515; Loach 1999, p. 163 [161]Skidmore 2007, p. 249 [162]Mackie 1952, pp. 522–23 [163]Jordan 1970, p. 515; Elton 1977, p. 373n16 [164]Jordan 1970, pp. 515–16; Guy 1988, p. 226; Hoak 1980, p. 48. Jordan believes that Edward’s "resolve to bar Mary from the throne had now become something approaching a mania". Guy suggests that the drafts of the device were presented by Sir John Gates, a follower of Northumberland, to Edward, who then copied them out. In Hoak’s view, "Contrary to what has been thought, the scheme to alter the succession originated in Northumberland’s camp and not in King Edward’s brain". [165]Mackie 1952, p. 524 [166]Hoak 1980, p. 48 [167]Hoak 1980, pp. 29–51; Alford 2002, p. 172 [168]Hoak 1980, p. 48; Skidmore 2007, p. 287 [169]Jordan 1970, pp. 513–14; Skidmore 2007, p. 249 [170]Jordan 1970, p. 516 [171]Elton 1977, pp. 374–75 [172]Skidmore 2007, pp. 244–45 [173]Loach 1999, p. 159 [174]Skidmore 2007, p. 247; Loach 1999, p. 160 [175]Jordan 1970, pp. 518–19 [176]Skidmore 2007, p. 254 [177]Skidmore 2007, p. 258; Loach 1999, p. 167. See Foxe’s Acts and monuments, VI, 352. [178]Loach 1999, pp. 167–69 [179]Loach 1999, p. 160; Jordan 1970, p. 520n1 [180]Dickens 1967, p. 352 [181]Skidmore 2007, pp. 258–59 [182]̂ Skidmore 2007, p. 260 [183]Loach 1999, p. 161 [184]Erickson 1978, p. 289 [185]Jordan 1970, p. 521 [186]Erickson 1978, pp. 290–91; Tittler 1991, p. 8 [187]Jordan 1970, p. 522 [188]Elton 1977, p. 375; Dickens 1967, p. 353 [189]Jordan 1970, p. 524; Elton 1977, p. 375 [190]Erickson 1978, p. 291 [191]Tittler 1991, p. 10; Erickson 1978, pp. 292–93 [192]Erickson 1978, p. 294; Jordan 1970, p. 527 [193]Jordan 1970, pp. 529–30 [194]Loades 2004, p. 134 [195]Loades, pp. 134–35 [196]Tittler 1991, p. 11; Erickson 1978, pp. 357–58 [197]MacCulloch 2002, pp. 21–25, 107 [198]MacCulloch 2002, p. 12 [199]Scarisbrick 1971, pp. 545–47 [200]Elton 1962, p. 212; Skidmore 2007, pp. 8–9 [201]MacCulloch 2002, p. 8 [202]Elton 1977, pp. 378, 383 [203]Elton 1962, pp. 216–219 [204]Haigh 1993, p. 223; Elton 1977, pp. 382–83 [205]Loach 1999, p. 182; Haigh 1993, p. 175 [206]Haigh 1993, p. 235 [207]Haigh 1993, p. 238 [208]Somerset 1997, p. 101 [209]Loach 1999, p. 182; MacCulloch 2002, p. 79 Bibliography • Alford, Stephen (2002), Kingship and Politics in the Reign of Edward VI, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521039711 . • Aston, Margaret (1993), The King’s Bedpost: Reformation and Iconography in a Tudor Group Portrait, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052148457X . • Brigden, Susan (2000), New Worlds, Lost Worlds: The Rule of the Tudors, 1485–1603, London: Allen Lane/Penguin, ISBN 0713990678 . • Davis, Catharine (2002), A Religion of the Word: The Defence of the Reformation in the Reign of Edward VI, Manchester: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 18 Manchester University Press, ISBN 9780719057304 . • Dickens, A. G. (1967), The English Reformation, London: Fontana, ISBN 0006861156 . • Elton, G. R. (1962), England Under the Tudors, London: Methuen, OCLC 154186398 . • Elton, G. R. (1977), Reform and Reformation, London: Edward Arnold, ISBN 0713159537 . • Erickson, Carolly (1978), Bloody Mary, New York: Doubleday, ISBN 0385116632 . • Foister, Susan (2006), Holbein in England, London: Tate Publishing, ISBN 1854376454 . • Guy, John (1988), Tudor England, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192852132 . • Haigh, Christopher (1993), English Reformations: Religion, Politics and Society Under the Tudors, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198221623 . • Hearn, Karen (1995), Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630, New York: Rizzoli, ISBN 084781940X . • Hoak, Dale (1980), "Rehabilitating the Duke of Northumberland: Politics and Political Control, 1549–53", in Loach, Jennifer; Tittler, Robert, The Mid-Tudor Polity c. 1540–1560, London: Macmillan, pp. 29–51, ISBN 0333245288 . • Jordan, W. K. (1970), Edward VI: The Threshold of Power. The Dominance of the Duke of Northumberland, London: George Allen & Unwin, ISBN 0049420836 . • Jordan, W. K. (1968), Edward VI: The Young King. The Protectorship of the Duke of Somerset, London: George Allen & Unwin, OCLC 40403 . • Loach, Jennifer (1999), Bernard, George; Williams, Penry, eds., Edward VI, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ISBN 0300079923 . • Loades, David (2004), Intrigue and Treason: The Tudor Court, 1547–1558, London: Pearson Longman, ISBN 0582772265 . • Lydon, James (1998), The Making of Ireland: A History, London: Routledge, ISBN 9780415013475 . • MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2002), The Boy King: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation, Berkeley: University of California Press, ISBN 0520234022 . • MacCulloch, Diarmaid (1996), Thomas Cranmer, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ISBN 0300074484 . • Mackie, J. D. (1952), The Earlier Tudors, 1485–1558, Oxford: Clarendon Press, OCLC 186603282 . • Rowlands, John (1985), Holbein: The Paintings of Hans Holbein the Younger, Boston: David R. Godine, ISBN 0879235780 . • Scarisbrick, J. J. (1971), Henry VIII, London: Penguin, ISBN 014021318X . • Skidmore, Chris (2007), Edward VI: The Lost King of England, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ISBN 9780297846499 . • Somerset, Anne (1997), Elizabeth I, London: Phoenix, ISBN 1842126245 . • Starkey, David (2004), Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII, London: Vintage, ISBN 0099437244 . • Starkey, David (2002), The Reign of Henry VIII, London: Vintage, ISBN 0099445107 . • Strong, Roy (1969), Tudor and Jacobean Portraits, London: HMSO, OCLC 71370718 . • Tittler, Robert (1991), The Reign of Mary I, London: Longman, ISBN 0582061075 . • Wormald, Jenny (2001), Mary, Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion and a Kingdom Lost, London: Tauris Parke, ISBN 1860645887 . Further reading • Bush, M. L. (1975), The Government Policy of Protector Somerset, London: Edward Arnold, OCLC 60005549 . • Hoak, Dale (1976), The King’s Council in the Reign of Edward VI, New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521208661 . • Jordan, W. K., ed. (1966), The Chronicle and Political Papers of Edward VI, Ithaca, NY: Folger Shakespeare Library/Cornell University Press, OCLC 398375 . • Loades, David (1996), John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, 1504–1553, Oxford: Clarendon, ISBN 0198201931 . • Pollard, A. F. (1900), England Under Protector Somerset, London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner, OCLC 4244810 . External links • Tytler, Patrick Fraser (1839), England under the Reigns of Edward VI and Mary, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 19 Edward VI of England House of Tudor Born: 12 October 1537 Died: 6 July 1553 Regnal titles Preceded by Henry VIII King of England King of Ireland 28 January 1547 – 6 July 1553 Succeeded by Jane or Mary I English royalty Preceded by Lady Elizabeth Tudor Heir to the English Throne as heir apparent 12 October 1537 – 28 January 1547 New title New Kingdom Heir to the Irish Throne as heir apparent 1541 – 28 January 1547 Succeeded by Lady Mary Tudor Peerage of England Vacant Title last held by Henry, Prince of Wales later became King Henry VIII Prince of Wales 1537 – 1547 Vacant Title last held by Henry Tudor, Duke of Cornwall Duke of Cornwall 1537 – 1547 Vacant Title next held by Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales I, London: Richard Bentley, http://books.google.com/ books?id=414JAAAAIAAJ, retrieved on 2008-08-17 • Tytler, Patrick Fraser (1839), England under the Reigns of Edward VI and Mary, II, London: Richard Bentley, http://books.google.com/ books?id=tl4JAAAAIAAJ, retrieved on 2008-08-17 Persondata NAME Edward VI of England ALTERNATIVE NAMES Edward I of Ireland SHORT DESCRIPTION Tudor king DATE OF BIRTH 12 October 1537 PLACE OF BIRTH Hampton Court Palace, Richmond upon Thames DATE OF DEATH 6 July 1553 PLACE OF DEATH Palace of Placentia, Green- wich, London Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VI_of_England" Categories: English monarchs, Henry VIII's children, Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of France (Plantagenet), Founders of English schools and colleges, Princes of Wales, People from London, Burials at Westminster Abbey, Rulers who died as children, Modern child rulers, 1537 births, 1553 deaths This page was last modified on 15 May 2009, at 17:18 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax- deductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edward VI of England 20