This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Edward VI of England is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Edward VI of England at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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.
I changed the title of the Ahnentafel section yesterday to "Table of ancestry"; this was reverted with the edit summary“ "Table of ancestry does not mean anything. Ahnentafel does".
This seems an odd contention; Table of ancestry is plain enough English (and is a fair translation of ahnentafel) while Ahnentafel itself is a technical term unfamiliar to most readers (and without a link, likely to remain so). It is also inconsistent with most of the other articles we have on English (and later, British) monarchs.
So, why then is it important to retain it? Moonraker12 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that "ahnentafel" is much more precise than "table of ancestors" and, since ahnentafel is what is in the article, it would make more sense to use that term (the more precise one). The family tree preceding it is also an ancestry table, so we should probably be more precise. I do not feel very strongly about this, but can we not include a link? Template:Ahnentafel top might be the place for it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
How about moving the ahnentafel above the family tree so that it is just below the "Ancestry" heading? Then there would be no need for a second sub-heading. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: On the subject of being more precise, ahnentafel simply means “ancestor table”, for which “table of ancestors” is just as good; and the more precise term in English would be “pedigree”. As for what is in the article, an ahnentafel is a means of giving ancestors a numerical value, and would look like this; what we have here is a pedigree chart with ahnentafel numbering (If you want a link to the ahnentafel article, that phrase could always be included in the table somewhere). And a family tree isn't just an ancestor table, as it covers descendants, siblings and cousins as well.
But the issue here isn't what is more precise, but why it is necessary to use a relatively obscure non-English term in preference to a clearly understandable English one (which we are specifically enjoined not to do). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Celia Homeford: That would be one remedy, though I can't help thinking that arrangement would suggest the ancestors table was more important (giving it a full section) than the family tree (just a sub-section). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I would also be happy with removal (it isn't cited and I agree is not as important as the family tree). Celia Homeford (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)