Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
4:46 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
I hope it's alright to start this thread. I saw there was one about his health but I thought it might be best to have just a thread for general discussion.
I suppose this is the person that really got me intrigued with the Tudor dynasty when I was being taught about the time in high school history. Here was a boy who became king at 9 and died at the age of 15. Just 3 years older than I was at the time of study. So I suppose there was a part of me that thought how cool would it be to be King Of England.
It seems that out of all his children, Edward is the least well remembered, majorly eclipsed by Elizabeth and even pushed aside for is 'bloody' sister in the history books. Even though Edward was the one child Henry always longed for. Maybe that's why he still appeals to me, because he is forgotten.
My first query about the young King is this. Why wasn't he married? Was he too young? At what age could someone be married in Tudor England?
You would think that it would be in the regency's best interest to try and get a heir out of Edward, to keep those 'sneaky' Catholics off the throne . From all my quick research, it doesn't even seem like there were any potential marriages in the time leading to his illness. The most I have found is the betrothal to Mary, Queen Of Scots which went sour. Which confuses me, cause if Henry was prepared to to have his son bethrothed to a 6 month old, surely Edward's regency would be looking for a suitable candidate.
5:10 pm
March 9, 2011
Offline
Edward VI intrigues me, too. When I think of everything Henry put the country and his family through to achieve this one object — a live, legitimate male child — it's sad to know he died young after a brief, relatively uneventful reign.
I wonder, also, if Mary, Queen of Scots, might have had an easier life if her marriage to Edward had gone through. She still would have been a young widow, but if she'd adopted the Protestant faith perhaps the Scots would not have hated her so much.
I'm sure Somerset was “bride-shopping” for Edward, but I've no idea who the other candidates may have been.
5:32 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
Christopher Skidmore wrote a great biography of Edward VI titled Edward VI: the lost King of England. It's a great read, and I learned a lot about Edward that I did not know before. Skidmore really brings Edward to life (even thugh a short one), and the struggles of a Regency.
I am not sure about the whole marriage issue. Henry did attempt, very forcefully, to arrange a marry between Mary and Edward. It would have given Henry everything he wanted, alas it would have been a short marriage. I feel this could have been an Arthur and Catherine again: no child, one partner dies young, and the other seeks better marriage prospects. I am sure there would have been a war over Scotland, even if it was Mary's by birth and only England's marriage.
There was a plan to marry Edward to Lady Jane Grey. I believe we all know how that ends.
I agree with La Belle Creole that Somerset was probably constantly looking for a prospective bride, but one that suited him and his family's political security.
Bill, I believe the minimum age for consummation was 12. I could be wrong.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
5:39 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Canonical age for marriage and consummation was 12 for females and 14 for males.Most families, however wished for consumation to happen later.
Though Thomas Seymour was trying to marry Edward to Jane, Edward was looking for a much better dowered bride, Mary of Scotland had been the front-runner for a while. Somerset was aslo looking at French and Habsburg noble ladies to secure political advantages.
It's always bunnies.
5:54 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
Thanks for the reply on the age of marriage. It would have been interesting IF Edward had married and died with a pregant wife. Out of curiousity how would that end up working in regards to the throne. Would the throne be in limbo until the birth of the child?
Thank you for recommending that book DoB, I have already added it to my list of potential books to purchase. I just ordered my first couple of books today (Weir's Wives and Children Books), so if I find that I read them as opposed to sitting on a shelf I will definitely invest in more books, with probably the Edward book being first off the rank.
So even after the botch Rough Wooing, Mary was still a potential bride for Edward? I didn't know that. I had read something about Jane being offered as a possible contender.
6:42 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
The short answer would be yes.The throne would have waited for the birth of a child. In reality….who knows?
The only recent history the nobles had was the reign of Henry VI. Henry succeeded to the throne age less than a year. Otherwise they were looking to Europe for president.
It's always bunnies.
11:18 am
January 9, 2010
Offline
Chris Skidmore's book on Edward is on my wish list too! Thomas Seymour was certainly hoping for a marriage between Edward and Lady Jane Grey as he had wardship of her at the time, but unfortunately for Edward he got sick just as serious negotiations for his marriage would have started in earnest. I can't remember where I read it but I think he himself preferred marriage with one of the French princesses. I think him being a staunch Protestant may have hindered a quicker marriage as it would have taken time for a contract to be agreed upon with any alliance with one of the European powers which of course were still Catholic.
3:44 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
Otherwise they were looking to Europe for president.
May you please explain what you meant by this?
Still suprised that during Henry's reign he didn't finalise a betrothal for his son. Considering how obsessed he was in getting a son, you'd think he would want to guarantee the longevity of the Tudor line, not just hope for the best when his song became King.
8:41 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Henry was too busy looking for his own next woman, he didn't seem to have enough time to arrange suitable marriages for any of his children. He could have easily married off Mary long before Edward was born, but was too caught up in his own life to do it.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
8:59 am
January 17, 2011
Offline
This is a great thread as I know very little about Edward which is rather sad as he was a King of England!
Why do we know so little I ask myself, why has history overlooked him?????
I suppose one answer is that the Tudor dynasty was so full of many rich colourful characters and Edward somehow paled into insignificance, I'm going to enjoy this thread as I want to learn more 
9:48 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said:
Otherwise they were looking to Europe for president.
May you please explain what you meant by this?
Still suprised that during Henry's reign he didn't finalise a betrothal for his son. Considering how obsessed he was in getting a son, you'd think he would want to guarantee the longevity of the Tudor line, not just hope for the best when his song became King.
The only recent regancies* had happened in Europe, Scotland had the Earl of Arran and then Mary of Guise acting as regents for Mary of Scotland. Charles had had a regency for his youth too.
* Henry's grandmother had acted as regent for him for several months until he reached 18. That was a lot different to the protracted regency expected for Edward.
I think Henry really wanted to have Edward marry Mary so he didn't look around for other wivws, possibly thinking he had plenty of time.
It's always bunnies.
10:01 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
MegC said:
Henry was too busy looking for his own next woman, he didn't seem to have enough time to arrange suitable marriages for any of his children. He could have easily married off Mary long before Edward was born, but was too caught up in his own life to do it.
I think also part of it was the irregular status of Mary. Her illegimatecy made her a less attractive European bride than had she been legitimate and Henry would not have allowed her claim to the throne be bolustered by marriage to an English noble.
It's always bunnies.
10:29 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
All I can say is that he managed to arrange a marriage for Henry Fitzroy–even if he did die young, so I don't know if legitimacy had that much to do with it.
All this about continuing the Tudor name…I don't think he cared anywhere near as much about that as he did about stroking his own ego. Two girls and the only living son he can manage is to Bessie Blount? The man's ego was bruised.
He constantly needed a pretty little trophy wife to make him feel young and strong and virile. Who has time to care for children's futures when they're busy chasing tail and executing queens in an effort to regain their own youth?
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
10:49 am
February 3, 2011
Offline
Bill1978 said:
My first query about the young King is this. Why wasn't he married? Was he too young? At what age could someone be married in Tudor England?
I suppose the simple answer behind why he did not marry is that he died too early. Plus his intended bride post-1551 was too young to be sent to England to consummate a marriage.
There were several marriage discussions. Most famous were those between the English and the Scots (or should I say Henry VIII imposed the discussions on the Scots) regarding a marriage between their young queen, Mary, and Prince Edward. These completely fell apart when the Auld Alliance was renewed and the young Mary was sent to the court of Henri II of France, to be betrothed to his eldest son and heir, the dauphin Francis (later Francis II).
In 1551 peace talks resumed between England and France and Henri II proposed a marriage between Edward and his daughter, Elisabeth. As was customary, a portrait of Elisabeth was sent, much haggling over the terms of the marriage contract, namely the amount of her dowry, ensued and an agreement reached in July 1551. To mark this, Edward sent Elisabeth a large diamond which once had belonged to Katherine Parr.
There was also an English candidate – Lady Jane Grey. From 1547 her guardian was Thomas Seymour (Edward’s uncle), who in the same year married Katherine Parr. After Katherine’s death in 1548, the duke and duchess of Suffolk asked for Jane to return to them. Seymour replied that if she stayed with him he would make sure the girl ended up making a good match. As he told her parents, she was ‘as handsome a lady as any in England and that she might be wife to any prince in Christen[dom], and that, if the king’s majesty, when he came of age would marry within the realm, it was as likely he would be there, as in any other place’. They assented to his pleas, naturally desiring such a grand match for their daughter. Obviously Seymour’s downfall sabotaged these plans, as did the talks with the French. Whether they could have resumed had Edward lived longer and the Anglo-French talks broken down as they may well have done, remains something to speculate.
"Much as her form seduc'd the sight,
Her eyes could ev'n more surely woo;"
11:09 am
February 3, 2011
Offline
Bill1978 said:
Thanks for the reply on the age of marriage. It would have been interesting IF Edward had married and died with a pregant wife. Out of curiousity how would that end up working in regards to the throne. Would the throne be in limbo until the birth of the child?
Yes; a regent would have been appointed until the child’s birth. This sort of thing had happened before. Louis X of France died leaving a pregnant wife, so his brother acted as regent. The infant survived for only a few days.
Given that Edward's other heir, Mary Tudor, never doubted her brother's right to sit on the throne, there would have been no danger of her snatching it had he died leaving a pregnant widow. She only contested Jane Grey’s right because she believed this was completely invalid due to her father’s laws.
"Much as her form seduc'd the sight,
Her eyes could ev'n more surely woo;"
11:18 am
February 3, 2011
Offline
Bill1978 said:
So even after the botch Rough Wooing, Mary was still a potential bride for Edward?
There is some speculation that William Parr, marquess of Northampton’s diplomatic mission to France in 1551, which officially was to engage in marriage talks between Edward and Elisabeth, was actually committed to thwart the prospective marriage to Mary, Queen of Scots to the dauphin. If so, the English failed.
"Much as her form seduc'd the sight,
Her eyes could ev'n more surely woo;"
7:51 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Nasim said:
Bill1978 said:
Thanks for the reply on the age of marriage. It would have been interesting IF Edward had married and died with a pregant wife. Out of curiousity how would that end up working in regards to the throne. Would the throne be in limbo until the birth of the child?
Yes; a regent would have been appointed until the child’s birth. This sort of thing had happened before. Louis X of France died leaving a pregnant wife, so his brother acted as regent. The infant survived for only a few days.
Given that Edward's other heir, Mary Tudor, never doubted her brother's right to sit on the throne, there would have been no danger of her snatching it had he died leaving a pregnant widow. She only contested Jane Grey’s right because she believed this was completely invalid due to her father’s laws.
Mary was very determinded to stick to the laws of inheritance, as was Elizabeth. Elizabeth was asked to renounce her claim to the thone by Dudley but declined since her claim as the junior female was dependant on Mary's claim.
It's always bunnies.
2:08 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
Out of curiosity, if Henry VIII was able to dictate the order of succession, as in skip the older sister's family which technically he shouldn't have, how come Edward's concept was eventually overruled? Why didn't Edward have the right to change the order of succession and skip his family and give it to his cousin's family? Does it have something to do with Henry's being an Act passed and approved by Parliament, while Edward's was more of a Will statement which parliament hadn't approved at the time of his death? Because my current thinking is, why should a previous King's idea take precedent over the current King's idea. And I though it was the current monarch's divine right to pass the crown to whoever they so decided.
4:40 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said:
Out of curiosity, if Henry VIII was able to dictate the order of succession, as in skip the older sister's family which technically he shouldn't have, how come Edward's concept was eventually overruled? Why didn't Edward have the right to change the order of succession and skip his family and give it to his cousin's family? Does it have something to do with Henry's being an Act passed and approved by Parliament, while Edward's was more of a Will statement which parliament hadn't approved at the time of his death? Because my current thinking is, why should a previous King's idea take precedent over the current King's idea. And I though it was the current monarch's divine right to pass the crown to whoever they so decided.
Edward was still a minor, king or not, so his act was not legal due to his age.
It's always bunnies.
