Talk:Edward VI of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Edward VI of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 28, 2010.
On this day... Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 24, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
June 8, 2006 Featured article review Kept
June 14, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
September 17, 2008 Featured article review Kept
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 28, 2009.
Current status: Featured article

He was never prince of wales[edit]

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

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

But, see this discussion at this page on the future Edward VI, and this source at Wikiman86 (talkcontribs) 02:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Deposition of Jane by Mary, figure altered[edit]

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

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

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

Tks for starting the discussion. My first thought when figures are changed without explanation in Featured Articles is to revert, but because the new figure didn't seem outrageous I checked the main body... Under the subsection Queen Mary and Queen Jane there is the following cited text: "on 19 July the Council publicly proclaimed Mary as queen; Jane's nine-day reign came to an end" -- so "nine days" in the lead seemed valid. That's all I'm basing it on, there are others more expert than I in this area, e.g. Hchc2009 and Ealdgyth, who might be able to confirm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Jane is traditionally called the "Nine-Day Queen", and her reign is given as 10-19 July. Edward died on the 6th, so the extra four days comes from the 6-10. "Within 13 days" also does not contradict "9 days" because 9 days is within 13. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Celia Homeford:; Fair enough, if the nine day figure is correct, I'm happy to accept that. I was sceptical in the first place because unexplained changes of figures by anonymous users or those with negligible history (the person who made the original change) are frequently- though not always- misinformation vandalism. Ubcule (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in this period, but the 9 day statement is one I've seen elsewhere in the literature, and the "nine-day Queen" statement is a common label for her, as Celia says. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Sermon by Cramner[edit]

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.

Table of ancestry[edit]

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)