What do you think?
Rate this book
Edward VI: The Lost King of England
On the death of Henry VIII, the crown passed to his nine-year-old son, Edward. However, real power went to the Protector, Edward's uncle, the Duke of Somerset. The court had been a hotbed of intrigue since the last days of Henry VIII. Without an adult monarch, the stakes were even higher. The first challenger was the duke's own brother: he seduced Henry VIII's former queen, Katherine Parr; having married her, he pursued Princess Elizabeth and later was accused of trying to kidnap the boy king at gunpoint. He was beheaded. Somerset ultimately met the same fate, after a coup d'etat organized by the Duke of Warwick. Chris Skidmore reveals how the countrywide rebellions of 1549 were orchestrated by the plotters at court and were all connected to the (literally) burning issue of religion: Henry VIII had left England in religious limbo. Court intrigue, deceit and treason very nearly plunged the country into civil war. Edward was a precocious child, as his letters in French and Latin demonstrate. He kept a secret diary, written partly in Greek, which few of his courtiers could read. In 1551, at the age of 14, he took part in his first jousting tournament, an essential demonstration of physical prowess in a very physical age. Within a year it is his signature we find at the bottom of the Council minutes, yet in early 1553 he contracted a chest infection and later died, rumours circulating that he might have been poisoned. Mary, Edward's eldest sister, and devoted Catholic, was proclaimed Queen. This is more than just a story of bloodthirsty power struggles, but how the Church moved so far along Protestant lines that Mary would be unable to turn the clock back. It is also the story of a boy born to absolute power, whose own writings and letters offer a compelling picture of a life full of promise, but tragically cut short.
366 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2007
40 people are currently reading
4249 people want to read
About the author
Chris Skidmore
14 books51 followersChris Skidmore was born in 1981. He was educated at Bristol Grammar School and Christ Church, Oxford, where he was a St Cyre's and Dixon Scholar and President of the Oxford University Historical Society. He graduated in 2002 with a double first and was awarded a Gibbs Prize. Chris conducted postgraduate research at Oxford, where he was a convenor of a graduate seminar on the Tudor nobility. He was an adviser and researcher to Bristol's bid for European Capital City of Culture 2008 and was research assistant to Robert Lacey for his Great Tales of English History series. Chris has also written for the Western Daily Press and People Magazine. Chris currently teaches Early Modern History part-time at Bristol University. He served as Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Kingswood from 2010 to 2024 and held several government ministerial posts between 2016 and 2020.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
February 6, 2013
The boy-king Edward VI was a Tudor King and yet due to his short reign, was overshadowed by the other Tudor monarchs. In every history book you will read, they briefly graze upon Edward and his over-bearing concillors Edward Seymour and John Dudley. Yet, those threads and facts are merely presented to demonstrate how they effected upon the lives of Mary and Elizabeth.
Skidmore delightfully presents an ENTIRE book dedicated to the young boy who changed England forever by pushing Protestantism and also changing Henry VIII's will by creating his own "Device" to the Sucession and implementing Jane Grey's mother and ultimately Jane. Skidmore provides an open look into how controlled poor Edward was, and yet his struggle for power and religious control. A lesser-talked about monarch and yet a strong "child".
Skidmore provides historically-accurate facts and keeps you on your toes. Suggested for any Tudor fan.
Skidmore delightfully presents an ENTIRE book dedicated to the young boy who changed England forever by pushing Protestantism and also changing Henry VIII's will by creating his own "Device" to the Sucession and implementing Jane Grey's mother and ultimately Jane. Skidmore provides an open look into how controlled poor Edward was, and yet his struggle for power and religious control. A lesser-talked about monarch and yet a strong "child".
Skidmore provides historically-accurate facts and keeps you on your toes. Suggested for any Tudor fan.
February 8, 2019
When we think of the Tudor rulers, we think of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Mary I and Elizabeth I. However, there was another king who ruled for only five years and was Henry VIII’s only legitimate male heir, Edward VI. Most people think that Edward was a mere pawn of his government officials but is that accurate? Chris Skidmore tackles that question of who was the real Edward VI in his book “Edward VI: The Lost King of England”.
We all know the story of how Henry VIII wanted a male heir and how Henry dealt with his wives, Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn when they couldn’t produce male heirs. It was Jane Seymour who was able to give birth to Henry’s heir Edward on October 12, 1537, although she died shortly after. From the beginning of his young life, Edward was coddled and his education was carefully considered. Edward was living a comfortable life of a prince, but that all changed when on January 28, 1547, Henry VIII died and at the tender age of nine. Chris Skidmore put this young king’s life into perspective:
The legacy of Edward’s reign is one of the most exciting political histories of the Tudor age, from which few appeared unscathed. His untimely death cut short a life that, forged in the remarkable political circumstance of his childhood, would have left us with a very different Tudor England than that fashioned under the female monarchies of Mary and Elizabeth (page 9)
Some of the few men who were in charge of Edward’s well-being while he was making the transition from boy to king were Edward Seymour Duke of Somerset, Edward’s maternal uncle, John Dudley Duke of Northumberland, and John Cheke, Edward’s tutor. Edward Seymour was the Lord Protector and the older brother of the somewhat infamous Thomas Seymour. Edward Seymour and John Dudley would later come to hate each other and most of Edward’s short reign consisted of the two men fighting each other for the right to help Edward run the kingdom, as well as fight rebellions that would spring up to try and throw the country into chaos.
John Cheke, as Edward’s tutor, taught the young king about the Protestant faith that was mw00459making a foothold in England. Most people think that Henry VIII was the one who helped bring the Protestant faith to England when he broke away from Rome. Henry VIII might of helped get the reform started, but Edward VI was the one who took the Protestant movement and was willing to make it known throughout England, even if it meant facing against his most formidable foe, his half-sister Mary who was a devout Catholic.
This was the world that King Edward VI lived in until he died on July 6, 1553, at the age of fifteen. Even after he died, he threw chaos into the succession that his father planned out by placing his cousin Lady Jane Grey on the throne instead of Mary. It did not last long but the six-day reign of Lady Jane Grey was Edward’s choice and his alone. By the end of his life, Edward was becoming his own man and no one would stand in his way.
In “Edward VI: The Lost King of England”, Chris Skidmore brings the reader into this complex world of this young king both inside his court and what the laws he enacted did to the common people. Skidmore illuminates this once forgotten king whose life was cut short by tuberculosis and shows us how much of a reformer king he truly was. Edward may have been young but he was an intellectual who made up his mind just like his father. This book gives us a different view of religion and politics during this time. Edward VI will never be lost or forgotten after this book.
We all know the story of how Henry VIII wanted a male heir and how Henry dealt with his wives, Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn when they couldn’t produce male heirs. It was Jane Seymour who was able to give birth to Henry’s heir Edward on October 12, 1537, although she died shortly after. From the beginning of his young life, Edward was coddled and his education was carefully considered. Edward was living a comfortable life of a prince, but that all changed when on January 28, 1547, Henry VIII died and at the tender age of nine. Chris Skidmore put this young king’s life into perspective:
The legacy of Edward’s reign is one of the most exciting political histories of the Tudor age, from which few appeared unscathed. His untimely death cut short a life that, forged in the remarkable political circumstance of his childhood, would have left us with a very different Tudor England than that fashioned under the female monarchies of Mary and Elizabeth (page 9)
Some of the few men who were in charge of Edward’s well-being while he was making the transition from boy to king were Edward Seymour Duke of Somerset, Edward’s maternal uncle, John Dudley Duke of Northumberland, and John Cheke, Edward’s tutor. Edward Seymour was the Lord Protector and the older brother of the somewhat infamous Thomas Seymour. Edward Seymour and John Dudley would later come to hate each other and most of Edward’s short reign consisted of the two men fighting each other for the right to help Edward run the kingdom, as well as fight rebellions that would spring up to try and throw the country into chaos.
John Cheke, as Edward’s tutor, taught the young king about the Protestant faith that was mw00459making a foothold in England. Most people think that Henry VIII was the one who helped bring the Protestant faith to England when he broke away from Rome. Henry VIII might of helped get the reform started, but Edward VI was the one who took the Protestant movement and was willing to make it known throughout England, even if it meant facing against his most formidable foe, his half-sister Mary who was a devout Catholic.
This was the world that King Edward VI lived in until he died on July 6, 1553, at the age of fifteen. Even after he died, he threw chaos into the succession that his father planned out by placing his cousin Lady Jane Grey on the throne instead of Mary. It did not last long but the six-day reign of Lady Jane Grey was Edward’s choice and his alone. By the end of his life, Edward was becoming his own man and no one would stand in his way.
In “Edward VI: The Lost King of England”, Chris Skidmore brings the reader into this complex world of this young king both inside his court and what the laws he enacted did to the common people. Skidmore illuminates this once forgotten king whose life was cut short by tuberculosis and shows us how much of a reformer king he truly was. Edward may have been young but he was an intellectual who made up his mind just like his father. This book gives us a different view of religion and politics during this time. Edward VI will never be lost or forgotten after this book.
March 16, 2017
Edward VI is little-known: most people, if they remember him, would recall him being the boy-king who preceded his more charismatic and dynamic sisters. And yet, this 'boy-king' reigned for 9 years, upon which there was a general shift in religious attitudes towards a more rigid Protestantism, away from the pseudo-Protestantism his father championed and the Catholic Church of old.
I picked up this book out of genuine curiosity - Edward, like previously remarked, is generally given a few mentions before historians and writers move on to Mary and Elizabeth. (Dare I suggest there may be more interest towards Jane than Edward?!) There's a lot to learn about the boy, and this book promised an introduction to the mysterious King.
Skidmore did an excellent job in introducing and emphasizing the intricacies of the court during Edward's reign. Being a minor, the King relied on his court to guide him, and any Tudorphile is aware of the deception, trickery and Machiavellian tactics that permeated the royal retinue. Perhaps a slight downside, but I expected there to be more of a focus on Edward himself; rather, a substantial part of the book was dedicated to developing characters such as Somerset and Northumberland. Understandable, but slightly disappointing. (A slight detour: the diary passages used by Skidmore were brilliant, and they allowed a greater understanding of the person behind the crown).
Ultimately, what this book really emphasized was the religious shift during Edward's reign, and this was the part I found the most fascinating. Edward was a strong proponent of the new religion - his role in the English Reformation was formative and compelling, and the changes he spurred are still seen today. As some other reader mentioned, it begs the question: how far would Edward have gone?
The writing on the whole was good: generally well-written, tending a bit on the conversational side at times. A great read, really - perfect for any Tudor lover. :)
I picked up this book out of genuine curiosity - Edward, like previously remarked, is generally given a few mentions before historians and writers move on to Mary and Elizabeth. (Dare I suggest there may be more interest towards Jane than Edward?!) There's a lot to learn about the boy, and this book promised an introduction to the mysterious King.
Skidmore did an excellent job in introducing and emphasizing the intricacies of the court during Edward's reign. Being a minor, the King relied on his court to guide him, and any Tudorphile is aware of the deception, trickery and Machiavellian tactics that permeated the royal retinue. Perhaps a slight downside, but I expected there to be more of a focus on Edward himself; rather, a substantial part of the book was dedicated to developing characters such as Somerset and Northumberland. Understandable, but slightly disappointing. (A slight detour: the diary passages used by Skidmore were brilliant, and they allowed a greater understanding of the person behind the crown).
Ultimately, what this book really emphasized was the religious shift during Edward's reign, and this was the part I found the most fascinating. Edward was a strong proponent of the new religion - his role in the English Reformation was formative and compelling, and the changes he spurred are still seen today. As some other reader mentioned, it begs the question: how far would Edward have gone?
The writing on the whole was good: generally well-written, tending a bit on the conversational side at times. A great read, really - perfect for any Tudor lover. :)
January 12, 2024
Every now and then I get on a Tudor kick, and this time I decided that I needed to fill in a gap in my Tudor knowledge. Not much has been written about Edward VI as his reign was short, he was a child king, and he is largely overshadowed by his tyrannical father who reigned before him and his sisters who reigned after him. The long awaited son of Henry VIII reigned from the age of nine until his death at fifteen, and due to his age the country was governed during that time by a regency council. This time is known for constant infighting and jockeying for power among his councilors, and unrest in the kingdom. This book describes all this in painful detail. The author presents evidence, however, that Edward was quite intellectually precocious, and near the end of his reign he was starting to assert himself, particularly on matters of religion. Had he lived he would likely have seized control while still in his mid teens. This book would have been infinitely more readable with a bit less detail, and less formal language, but I guess since it is pretty much the only good biography of this little known king it is good that his story is told thoroughly. I definitely need to read something lighter now though.
July 3, 2024
Chris Skidmore makes courageous choices addressing topics challenging due to limited popular appeal (his later book, Death and The Virgin, I thoroughly enjoyed). Edward VI's reign we see more through the prism of important religious development than being drawn to the boy king's persona. That's understandable, this being a short reign.
The obvious question is why this short reign is so eclipsed by 'Bloody' Mary I's even shorter one immediately following it? Answer: Mary was the first queen regnant, a mature and tormented woman with a dramatic personal history, a Catholic zealot who burnt heretics - for better or worse, a more colourful character to grasp.
Edward might have become a fascinating figure, but his meagre measure of life allowed little opportunity for noteworthy character building. Formidably well educated, he was also the first English monarch raised a Protestant. Intensely conscious of his status as God's anointed, he was pompous for his years, even castigating his much older intransigent half-sister Mary for flaunting her staunch Catholicism.
He conversely favoured his other half-sister Elizabeth, Mary's junior, who soundly rejected Catholicism.
He was similarly fond of his widowed stepmother Queen Catherine Parr, herself a keener reformist than her husband Henry VIII had been and who, in her early widowhood, married Edward's uncle Thomas Seymour, scheming brother of Lord Protector Somerset. This would have perplexed the boy, leaving him split around personal and official approval, family loyalty and royal favour.
Family rumour and scandal were persistently laid at Edward's feet, often intended to agitate the boy and tug at him to side with these incestuous court factions.
Touches of his tyrannical father glinted hopelessly through Edward's pasty adolescent veneer. He then became famously frail and sickly, confined and bedbound, more than ever under the spell of his scheming counsellors.
He expressed frustration by his powerlessness as a minor whose governing was done by a Regency Council while he, whose personal seal was required, felt personally responsible for so much. This primarily involved overseeing contentious religiopolitical completions his devout father had shied away from: despite his severance from Rome and Dissolution of Monasteries, Henry VIII had balked at extending his Church of England into one signifying a fully-fledged Protestant state. Responsibility fell into Edwards hands to add imperative final touches like abolition of the Mass and clerical celibacy, imposing compulsory services in English, etc.
These factors explain why Edward's reign is characterised and remembered through his advisors who steered such legislation, especially his Seymour uncle Edward, Duke of Somerset and then John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. Orbiting him like vultures was a fractious cast of royals and nobles far more memorable than Edward himself because of their longer and more complex and sensational lives.
In his frailty, conscious of his own mortality, he became increasingly malleable and vulnerable to diplomatic pressure. From his deathbed he was easily persuaded to sign over his kingdom to his Protestant cousin Lady Jane Grey, daughter-in-law of Edward's de facto regent, the dynastically ambitious Protestant John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland whose persuasion centred on Edward keeping his 'bastard' half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth from ruling, the eldest especially, being herself Catholic. Regardless how easily persuaded, Edward would again have felt torn by family loyalty, religion and kingly duty in this final act, preparing to meet his maker.
It's a pity to then have him eclipsed in history by the 'nine days queen' episode of Jane Grey who usurped Mary only to be overthrown herself. Edward becomes almost forgotten due to Mary's 'bloody' reign and religious reversion to Roman Catholicism, her marriage to Philip of Spain, her persecution of her half-sister Elizabeth who was sent to the Tower and almost never lived let alone ruled. Mary's humiliating phantom pregnancy adds to her infamy, as does her begrudging bequeath of the crown to Protestant half-sister Elizabeth in the absence of offspring. The latter's subsequent eponymous golden age again hold's poor Edward's place back in the Tudor shadows, forever outshone by his mighty father and legendary siblings.
Not everyone's favourite reign to read on, this is important history to understand, contextually. Chris Skidmore has my greatest respect for taking on projects his more popular contemporaries veer away from to stay safely within the established bounds of popular reading.
This, like Skidmore's other above-mentioned book, is well researched, written and documented. I'd like to see more of his clever biographical ideas materialise.
The obvious question is why this short reign is so eclipsed by 'Bloody' Mary I's even shorter one immediately following it? Answer: Mary was the first queen regnant, a mature and tormented woman with a dramatic personal history, a Catholic zealot who burnt heretics - for better or worse, a more colourful character to grasp.
Edward might have become a fascinating figure, but his meagre measure of life allowed little opportunity for noteworthy character building. Formidably well educated, he was also the first English monarch raised a Protestant. Intensely conscious of his status as God's anointed, he was pompous for his years, even castigating his much older intransigent half-sister Mary for flaunting her staunch Catholicism.
He conversely favoured his other half-sister Elizabeth, Mary's junior, who soundly rejected Catholicism.
He was similarly fond of his widowed stepmother Queen Catherine Parr, herself a keener reformist than her husband Henry VIII had been and who, in her early widowhood, married Edward's uncle Thomas Seymour, scheming brother of Lord Protector Somerset. This would have perplexed the boy, leaving him split around personal and official approval, family loyalty and royal favour.
Family rumour and scandal were persistently laid at Edward's feet, often intended to agitate the boy and tug at him to side with these incestuous court factions.
Touches of his tyrannical father glinted hopelessly through Edward's pasty adolescent veneer. He then became famously frail and sickly, confined and bedbound, more than ever under the spell of his scheming counsellors.
He expressed frustration by his powerlessness as a minor whose governing was done by a Regency Council while he, whose personal seal was required, felt personally responsible for so much. This primarily involved overseeing contentious religiopolitical completions his devout father had shied away from: despite his severance from Rome and Dissolution of Monasteries, Henry VIII had balked at extending his Church of England into one signifying a fully-fledged Protestant state. Responsibility fell into Edwards hands to add imperative final touches like abolition of the Mass and clerical celibacy, imposing compulsory services in English, etc.
These factors explain why Edward's reign is characterised and remembered through his advisors who steered such legislation, especially his Seymour uncle Edward, Duke of Somerset and then John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. Orbiting him like vultures was a fractious cast of royals and nobles far more memorable than Edward himself because of their longer and more complex and sensational lives.
In his frailty, conscious of his own mortality, he became increasingly malleable and vulnerable to diplomatic pressure. From his deathbed he was easily persuaded to sign over his kingdom to his Protestant cousin Lady Jane Grey, daughter-in-law of Edward's de facto regent, the dynastically ambitious Protestant John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland whose persuasion centred on Edward keeping his 'bastard' half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth from ruling, the eldest especially, being herself Catholic. Regardless how easily persuaded, Edward would again have felt torn by family loyalty, religion and kingly duty in this final act, preparing to meet his maker.
It's a pity to then have him eclipsed in history by the 'nine days queen' episode of Jane Grey who usurped Mary only to be overthrown herself. Edward becomes almost forgotten due to Mary's 'bloody' reign and religious reversion to Roman Catholicism, her marriage to Philip of Spain, her persecution of her half-sister Elizabeth who was sent to the Tower and almost never lived let alone ruled. Mary's humiliating phantom pregnancy adds to her infamy, as does her begrudging bequeath of the crown to Protestant half-sister Elizabeth in the absence of offspring. The latter's subsequent eponymous golden age again hold's poor Edward's place back in the Tudor shadows, forever outshone by his mighty father and legendary siblings.
Not everyone's favourite reign to read on, this is important history to understand, contextually. Chris Skidmore has my greatest respect for taking on projects his more popular contemporaries veer away from to stay safely within the established bounds of popular reading.
This, like Skidmore's other above-mentioned book, is well researched, written and documented. I'd like to see more of his clever biographical ideas materialise.
June 3, 2009
You don't hear a lot about Edward VI. The poor boy didn't rule very long and he was sandwiched between his father, the overbearing, gouty pig Henry VIII and his sisters, the overbearing gouty pig Mary I and the desperately insecure and petty yet brilliant feminist icon, Elizabeth I.
I found this to be a very interesting foray into his brief life and even briefer rule. His relationship with his Seymour uncles (ended in at least one death, I believe), his rigid Protestant beliefs and the political machinations behind his need to keep a Protestant on the throne are all discussed in depth. When he realized he was going to die, he skipped over his sisters (Mary was an avowed Catholic-just as rigid as he was and Elizabeth was shrewdly refusing to take sides) and sealed poor Jane Grey's (Nine-days queen)fate. And it all failed anyway, leading to Bloody Mary's reign.
Ironic, really, that the Tudor obsession with securing the throne with male heirs ended with Elizabeth who refused to marry and have children, ironic because it was that very obsession that set her on that path and lead to James' reign, which was also ironic, considering all the energy Elizabeth expended keeping James' mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, from claiming the throne. Oh, it's all twisted and fascinating!
I found this to be a very interesting foray into his brief life and even briefer rule. His relationship with his Seymour uncles (ended in at least one death, I believe), his rigid Protestant beliefs and the political machinations behind his need to keep a Protestant on the throne are all discussed in depth. When he realized he was going to die, he skipped over his sisters (Mary was an avowed Catholic-just as rigid as he was and Elizabeth was shrewdly refusing to take sides) and sealed poor Jane Grey's (Nine-days queen)fate. And it all failed anyway, leading to Bloody Mary's reign.
Ironic, really, that the Tudor obsession with securing the throne with male heirs ended with Elizabeth who refused to marry and have children, ironic because it was that very obsession that set her on that path and lead to James' reign, which was also ironic, considering all the energy Elizabeth expended keeping James' mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, from claiming the throne. Oh, it's all twisted and fascinating!
June 1, 2013
This is an interesting and very readable book covering a little-known king in English history. Although Edward VI died young and never truly reigned in his own right there is enough political in-fighting, rebellions and source material about the boy-king himself to tell a fascinating story.
In fact because this history is so limited in it's scope due to Edward's early death it provides a good opportunity for us to have an insight into how a king is educated and prepared for his future role rather than most histories which deal predominantly with adult monarchs.
It is true that the book spends as much time covering the two main political actors of the period - Somerset and Northumberland as it does Edward himself, however I think this is both necessary and unavoidable in order to understand events of the period.
As other reviews have mentioned, perhaps one failing of the book is that it doesn't ask the question of how influential Edward's short reign was. How significant were the religious reforms instigated during his life-time and what was their affect on the reigns of Mary and perhaps more importantly Elizabeth?
Despite this lack of analysis, if you're looking for a well-written and enjoyable narrative history of Edward VI's reign I would recommend this book.
In fact because this history is so limited in it's scope due to Edward's early death it provides a good opportunity for us to have an insight into how a king is educated and prepared for his future role rather than most histories which deal predominantly with adult monarchs.
It is true that the book spends as much time covering the two main political actors of the period - Somerset and Northumberland as it does Edward himself, however I think this is both necessary and unavoidable in order to understand events of the period.
As other reviews have mentioned, perhaps one failing of the book is that it doesn't ask the question of how influential Edward's short reign was. How significant were the religious reforms instigated during his life-time and what was their affect on the reigns of Mary and perhaps more importantly Elizabeth?
Despite this lack of analysis, if you're looking for a well-written and enjoyable narrative history of Edward VI's reign I would recommend this book.
October 13, 2017
This was a little bit of a drag for me in the middle. The beginning (close to Henry VIII's reign) and the end (the start of Mary's rule) were easier to follow. Between, when everyone is scheming for power while Edward VI is a minor, were a little hard to follow. It's difficult to keep track of who's who when they have a name and also a title and the two seem to be used interchangeably, with titles sometimes changing as well. But Skidmore seems to be very thorough, incorporating tons of primary source material, and it was well written. I don't think there are many books on Edward VI, I'd recommend this if you're looking for one.
August 13, 2009
Skidmore suffers of clumsy writing occasionally. I struggled with three or four stars as the material is good, the delivery lacks a bit. Some silly mistakes in wording that even an amateur like me picked off but a good addition to any Tudor lovers library. I came to know dear Eddy in a much fuller sense. Who he was and the triumphs and challenges faced during his brief "reign".
September 16, 2020
Edward VI is certainly an overlooked Tudor monarch, despite being the son Henry VIII so eagerly awaited. His brief reign was filled with intrigue and dominated by the noblemen who ruled in Edward's name. The shifts in power and schemes can be confusing, but Skidmore presents a very readable account of this troubled reign. Edward is an elusive personality, but more fleshed out as a person than in other biographies I've encountered. I really enjoyed this biography and I hope to find more information about some of the historical figures mentioned in this book. A good read and a fascinating history overall.
March 17, 2022
This definitely helped to fill in the oft overlooked gaps between Henry VIII and Elizabeth and was an interesting look at Edward VI. What strikes me is that the author seems to posit that he was a great monarch - and while he was certainly an intellectual - the rest of the books seems to merely show he was a teenager caught between two factions and was heavily controlled, as expected due to his age.
May 13, 2013
Packed between the glamorous, Hollywood friendly administrations of Henry and Elizabeth, Edward (and Mary) get little attention/glory. This first time author succeeds in explaining why Edward's reign is significant.
The book is more of a history of the reign than a biography. While it speaks to Edward's youth, education, governing, etc., there is much more text devoted to other key players and the politics of the time.
I don't understand this recent fad of book jackets for historical biography using cut off portraits. Here are some examples from my recent reading ... Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr, The Pirate Queen Queen Elizabeth I, Her Pirate Adventurers, and the Dawn of Empire, John Donne: The Reformed Soul. Female subjects sometimes have only the bodice and a piece of their chin: Catherine the Great: Love, Sex, and Power and Elizabeth & Leicester: Power, Passion, Politics.Elizabeth & Leicester: Power, Passion, Politics. You can see many more in bookstores and libraries.
The book is more of a history of the reign than a biography. While it speaks to Edward's youth, education, governing, etc., there is much more text devoted to other key players and the politics of the time.
I don't understand this recent fad of book jackets for historical biography using cut off portraits. Here are some examples from my recent reading ... Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr, The Pirate Queen Queen Elizabeth I, Her Pirate Adventurers, and the Dawn of Empire, John Donne: The Reformed Soul. Female subjects sometimes have only the bodice and a piece of their chin: Catherine the Great: Love, Sex, and Power and Elizabeth & Leicester: Power, Passion, Politics.Elizabeth & Leicester: Power, Passion, Politics. You can see many more in bookstores and libraries.
December 9, 2016
The only son of Henry VIII, Edward VI was a boy king who didn’t reign long enough to live up to his full potential. Upon his ascension to the throne, Edward’s monarchy was initially the Seymour show. His Uncle Edward Seymour, having acquired the role of Lord Protector, was basically ruling the country by proxy. Thomas Seymour, jealous of his brother’s power, attempted to kidnap Edward, which resulted in his beheading. I can’t imagine a boy sentencing his own uncle to death, but Thomas did kill Edward’s dog in the failed coup. That wouldn’t be the first of his Seymour uncles to lose his head; eventually the elder Seymour would end up on the scaffold. John Dudley was then next in line to dominate Edward’s minority. With so many ambitions men jockeying for power during Edward’s minority, it’s a wonder England didn’t tear itself to shreds.
I didn’t realize how the country teetered on the edge of rebellion at this time. And it wasn’t only because of Seymour’s ineffective protectorate, but land enclosure policy and religious reform. No doubt Edward was an enlightened king, championing the protestant faith, but he was bitterly opposed by his staunchly Catholic sister Mary. This led to the controversy of Edward changing his will on his deathbed to ensure his protestant cousin Jane Grey would succeed him. Dead at 15, Edward’s reign was tragically short, and he could have been a great king had he lived.
I didn’t realize how the country teetered on the edge of rebellion at this time. And it wasn’t only because of Seymour’s ineffective protectorate, but land enclosure policy and religious reform. No doubt Edward was an enlightened king, championing the protestant faith, but he was bitterly opposed by his staunchly Catholic sister Mary. This led to the controversy of Edward changing his will on his deathbed to ensure his protestant cousin Jane Grey would succeed him. Dead at 15, Edward’s reign was tragically short, and he could have been a great king had he lived.
September 29, 2011
It is a sad story. Edward managed to be both strong willed and easily manipulated leading to continual upheaval around him as his uncles and others vied for power. No one actually had his best interest in mind (or England's for the most part, either) though everyone protested to the contrary. Power was the sole interest for many and Edward, or his sisters Mary & Elizabeth, poor Jane Grey and others were just pawns. And almost no one in the story is not at some point both victim and victimizer. Jane Grey truly seemed to be the only innocent.
April 9, 2024
An interesting read. I recommend it to all who want to know more about England under Edward VI.
It is import to note, however, that the book doesn’t focus on Edward’s reign from his prospective as there are only limited accounts written by him at the time. Instead, the book revolves around the Regency Council under Sommerset and Northumberland. This is not a downside, in fact it is to be expected as the Council was in control of the realm, and Edward was relegated to effectively a constitutional role/figurehead.
It is import to note, however, that the book doesn’t focus on Edward’s reign from his prospective as there are only limited accounts written by him at the time. Instead, the book revolves around the Regency Council under Sommerset and Northumberland. This is not a downside, in fact it is to be expected as the Council was in control of the realm, and Edward was relegated to effectively a constitutional role/figurehead.
December 4, 2009
I'm actually still slogging my way through this but it's taking awhile because it's dense history and I have to be in the right mood to read it. It is a very good account of Edward and his reign - I'll probably finish it this winter.
March 9, 2008
Well worth reading for those who want to know more about this young King. His reign was brief, but not insignificant - especially in terms of the reformation of the Church of England.
October 24, 2009
He is often just a footnote. Here he was an actual person.
January 7, 2022
When people think of the Tudors, they often remember only 4 monarchs - the two Henrys (VII and VIII) and the two princesses: Mary and Elizabeth. But sandwiched between them, there are two more reigns: the minority of Edward VI and the extremely short reign of Jane Grey.
Skidmore decides to tell the story of the third male Tudor monarch - the boy who was crowned king when he was only 9 and who did not live to see his 16th birthday. That history had often been told in the tale of the Seymour and Dudley families fight for supremacy, with the king almost as an afterthought. Skidmore disagrees - the king, albeit young, is an active participant in his own reign, especially in the later years. The history got even more muddled after his death, when Mary tried to push the country back to the old religion and the historical Edward and the mythical banner of the Reformation got mixed, losing the picture of who Edward was or what he really did (and did not do).
The introduction sets the tone of the book - it is attempting to show the king as a boy and the king as a real sovereign and not just as a hapless poppet for his protector(s). Skidmore uses Edward's diary, correspondence and other written artifact liberally, citing them often (and sometimes in length); he adds the notes of different ambassadors and his own court to try to paint a picture which is a bit different from we all know (if one knows anything at all).
He partially succeeds. The problem is not the author though - the problem is that it did not matter how bright and zealous Edward was, he was still a boy. Skidmore makes quite a few good arguments for his independence and own decisions (including the act that tries to change the succession in order to save the Reformation and the new faith) but no matter how you read and write that whole story, it is not dominated by Edward but by the men who were supposed to help him lead his country - his two maternal uncles and Dudley (and his whole private council).
And herein lies the story. History is written by the winners and the next monarch has all the reasons to try to convince the world that her brother was misguided and used and that he did not mean what had been done. One wonders how different history would have been if Edward had lived (or if Mary had lived longer). Elizabeth coming on the throne put the country back on the Reformation path but she did not need her brother's humanity either - she needed him as an icon and a banner. Truth mattered very little.
In a way, that's probably the best we can get in terms of biography for the boy who never grew up. Skidmore manages to add more details in some places and to show Edward as a boy and a human being - a very religious one, with his own views on how the church and the country have to be ran. How much that was influenced by everyone around him will never be known but I can see the argument that he did not just act for others (or others acted for him) and that what is known as the Edward VI reformation indeed happened because he wanted it, not just because his protectors did.
I am not sure how accessible this book will be if you are not familiar with those years. Just keeping track of who is who can be daunting (Skidmore starts using the new name as soon as it is bestowed). There is a useful mini-biographies section at the start of the book with the names of the main players (including all their name changes and what's not) but unless you pay attention and look for them, things can get confusing. And yet, it should work as an introduction to a monarch who tends to get forgotten. Although as is usual for the modern historians, Skidmore over-promises a bit - despite it showing Edward as his own man, the book is still the Seymour and Dudley show - and they still overshadow their young charge (and pretty much die for it - only the youngest ones survive to live another day under the last Tudor monarch).
I learned a few new things about Edward (although I knew the story of Jane's succession from Eric Ives' [Lady Jane Grey] and I think that this is the part where history had judged the whole mess wrongly - Dudley may have grasped the moment and possibly influenced Edward but Skidmore does show the story a bit differently, with Edward driving it (and Ives corroborates) and not just being used).
We will probably never know the complete history - too much time had passed, too many interests had muddled the story. And Skidmore serves the young king well - showing him both regal and still being a child; enjoying life and trying to be what everyone expected him to be.
Skidmore decides to tell the story of the third male Tudor monarch - the boy who was crowned king when he was only 9 and who did not live to see his 16th birthday. That history had often been told in the tale of the Seymour and Dudley families fight for supremacy, with the king almost as an afterthought. Skidmore disagrees - the king, albeit young, is an active participant in his own reign, especially in the later years. The history got even more muddled after his death, when Mary tried to push the country back to the old religion and the historical Edward and the mythical banner of the Reformation got mixed, losing the picture of who Edward was or what he really did (and did not do).
The introduction sets the tone of the book - it is attempting to show the king as a boy and the king as a real sovereign and not just as a hapless poppet for his protector(s). Skidmore uses Edward's diary, correspondence and other written artifact liberally, citing them often (and sometimes in length); he adds the notes of different ambassadors and his own court to try to paint a picture which is a bit different from we all know (if one knows anything at all).
He partially succeeds. The problem is not the author though - the problem is that it did not matter how bright and zealous Edward was, he was still a boy. Skidmore makes quite a few good arguments for his independence and own decisions (including the act that tries to change the succession in order to save the Reformation and the new faith) but no matter how you read and write that whole story, it is not dominated by Edward but by the men who were supposed to help him lead his country - his two maternal uncles and Dudley (and his whole private council).
And herein lies the story. History is written by the winners and the next monarch has all the reasons to try to convince the world that her brother was misguided and used and that he did not mean what had been done. One wonders how different history would have been if Edward had lived (or if Mary had lived longer). Elizabeth coming on the throne put the country back on the Reformation path but she did not need her brother's humanity either - she needed him as an icon and a banner. Truth mattered very little.
In a way, that's probably the best we can get in terms of biography for the boy who never grew up. Skidmore manages to add more details in some places and to show Edward as a boy and a human being - a very religious one, with his own views on how the church and the country have to be ran. How much that was influenced by everyone around him will never be known but I can see the argument that he did not just act for others (or others acted for him) and that what is known as the Edward VI reformation indeed happened because he wanted it, not just because his protectors did.
I am not sure how accessible this book will be if you are not familiar with those years. Just keeping track of who is who can be daunting (Skidmore starts using the new name as soon as it is bestowed). There is a useful mini-biographies section at the start of the book with the names of the main players (including all their name changes and what's not) but unless you pay attention and look for them, things can get confusing. And yet, it should work as an introduction to a monarch who tends to get forgotten. Although as is usual for the modern historians, Skidmore over-promises a bit - despite it showing Edward as his own man, the book is still the Seymour and Dudley show - and they still overshadow their young charge (and pretty much die for it - only the youngest ones survive to live another day under the last Tudor monarch).
I learned a few new things about Edward (although I knew the story of Jane's succession from Eric Ives' [Lady Jane Grey] and I think that this is the part where history had judged the whole mess wrongly - Dudley may have grasped the moment and possibly influenced Edward but Skidmore does show the story a bit differently, with Edward driving it (and Ives corroborates) and not just being used).
We will probably never know the complete history - too much time had passed, too many interests had muddled the story. And Skidmore serves the young king well - showing him both regal and still being a child; enjoying life and trying to be what everyone expected him to be.
August 2, 2021
Edward VI tends to be the most overlooked sovereign of the Tudor dynasty. Chris Skidmore has compiled a comprehensive account of Edward's life and reign, attempting to highlight his contribution to English history. The truth is that his time as King of England was, for the most part, plagued by religious turmoil. His greatest accomplishment was the significant steps he took towards the Reformation in order to settle the matter of religion once and for all.
However, despite the fact that the author aims to showcase Edward as a central figure in the machinations of the government, he never really seemed to be in control. Undoubtedly, Edward had received an excellent education, preparing him for his future responsibilities, and had formed his own opinion on various issues, but everything was predecided for him. Even his education was specifically designed by the people who had claimed to be his most faithful subjects, striving only for the welfare of the country, only to seize power at the most opportune moment. At times, the book revolves solely around the people who had the most influence upon Edward, or were desperately labouring towards that direction: Somerset, Seymour and Northumberland. Somerset and Northumberland were the real figures of authority during Edward's reign, and thus their doings occupy a substantial part of his story, making it hard for the reader to believe that they're actually reading a book with Edward's name and portrait on the cover. This is proof that we are forced to recognize these people's impact not only upon Edward, but on history itself. Essentially, they were kings in all but name.
A part of his story I was quite looking forward to reading was the process leading to his "Devise" on the succession. Again, this document is presented as a brainchild of Edward's alone, which I believe could not be further from the truth. The author states the following: "According to the original draft, if Edward died childless, the Crown would now descend through the male heirs of Frances, Duchess of Suffolk, the daughter of Henry VIII's younger sister Mary. The line of succession would then continue through the male heirs of Frances's daughters, Jane, Catherine and Mary ... The only problem was that there were no male heirs ... All the more crucial, then, that Jane and Catherine be married off as soon as possible. For Jane, Northumberland could think of no better suitor than his own fourth surviving son, Guildford ... (the "Devise") now read: "To the Lady Fraunceses heirs males, if she have any such issue before my death to the Lady Jane and her heirs males." By default, the Crown would be Jane's ... For centuries it was assumed that the "Devise" was doctored by Northumberland, pressuring Edward into changing the line of succession in favour of Northumberland's new daughter-in-law, Jane. Yet Edward's detailed revisions demonstrate that he had thought very deeply over the nature of the English succession." Had he? After all the calculated moves on Northumberland's part to continue exercising absolute control, this time through his daughter-in-law, even after Edward was dead, can we honestly discard the possibility that he had indeed "doctored" the "Devise"? His actions certainly seem condemning.
Unfortunately, Edward was deprived of his chance to develop to his full potential. The sources reveal an intelligent adolescent, who could have had the chance to prove himself without the "regency" of any council, complete his reformation and gain much-needed experience while ruling his country. Instead, his progress was interrupted, and so we will never know what could have been.
However, despite the fact that the author aims to showcase Edward as a central figure in the machinations of the government, he never really seemed to be in control. Undoubtedly, Edward had received an excellent education, preparing him for his future responsibilities, and had formed his own opinion on various issues, but everything was predecided for him. Even his education was specifically designed by the people who had claimed to be his most faithful subjects, striving only for the welfare of the country, only to seize power at the most opportune moment. At times, the book revolves solely around the people who had the most influence upon Edward, or were desperately labouring towards that direction: Somerset, Seymour and Northumberland. Somerset and Northumberland were the real figures of authority during Edward's reign, and thus their doings occupy a substantial part of his story, making it hard for the reader to believe that they're actually reading a book with Edward's name and portrait on the cover. This is proof that we are forced to recognize these people's impact not only upon Edward, but on history itself. Essentially, they were kings in all but name.
A part of his story I was quite looking forward to reading was the process leading to his "Devise" on the succession. Again, this document is presented as a brainchild of Edward's alone, which I believe could not be further from the truth. The author states the following: "According to the original draft, if Edward died childless, the Crown would now descend through the male heirs of Frances, Duchess of Suffolk, the daughter of Henry VIII's younger sister Mary. The line of succession would then continue through the male heirs of Frances's daughters, Jane, Catherine and Mary ... The only problem was that there were no male heirs ... All the more crucial, then, that Jane and Catherine be married off as soon as possible. For Jane, Northumberland could think of no better suitor than his own fourth surviving son, Guildford ... (the "Devise") now read: "To the Lady Fraunceses heirs males, if she have any such issue before my death to the Lady Jane and her heirs males." By default, the Crown would be Jane's ... For centuries it was assumed that the "Devise" was doctored by Northumberland, pressuring Edward into changing the line of succession in favour of Northumberland's new daughter-in-law, Jane. Yet Edward's detailed revisions demonstrate that he had thought very deeply over the nature of the English succession." Had he? After all the calculated moves on Northumberland's part to continue exercising absolute control, this time through his daughter-in-law, even after Edward was dead, can we honestly discard the possibility that he had indeed "doctored" the "Devise"? His actions certainly seem condemning.
Unfortunately, Edward was deprived of his chance to develop to his full potential. The sources reveal an intelligent adolescent, who could have had the chance to prove himself without the "regency" of any council, complete his reformation and gain much-needed experience while ruling his country. Instead, his progress was interrupted, and so we will never know what could have been.
July 7, 2017
Here's to the boy king of England.
Since I watched the tv series "The Tudors", I've been intrigued about Prince Edward (Henry VIII's only male heir): why do we know so little about him and about his six years of reign? Most people who aren't familiar with this period of History don't even know that Henry VIII achieved his long desire and need for a male heir in his son with Jane Seymour, prince Edward of England.
When Henry died, Edward was only nine years old and became King of England, the first one of the new religion. His reign was a difficult one: rebellions came and went, people didn't accept the Reformation and still wanted the Catholic rites back... And the King was a child surrounded for people who wouldn't even blink to attempt to manipulate him to get what they wanted.
But here's the extraordinary thing about this and what I love the most about him: he was fiercely intelligent, devoted to learning and books since his most tender years - although he was a child for most of his life - and, most important of all, he had a gentle soul and was kind as his father never was in life. For all of this, many people in England saw in Edward a new dawn after the troubled reign of his father and put their hopes in the new king.
Sadly, these hopes wouldn't last for the king died when he was only fifteen and was beginning to control the kingdom on his own. The rest of the story is well-known: Mary I and Elizabeth I, which reign is called The Golden Age... But before them, there was their younger brother.
Certainly, Edward wasn't a saint and I'm not trying to say that, but one can't help but wonder what would have become of England with an adult Edward in the throne. He was fiercely devoted to the Reformation, nearly obsessed, and that could be dangerous, but I think that, above all, he cared about the wellbeing of his kingdom that some observes even said that "expectations about his Majesty will destroy him".
He was a child, he was King of England in a very difficult time and he knew how to stand up for his kingdom, despite of his young age. He was wise beyond his years, wise as few people are in their adulthood.
I ended this book on the 464 anniversary of his death and all I can say is "here's to King Edward of England, may your days never be forgotten".
Since I watched the tv series "The Tudors", I've been intrigued about Prince Edward (Henry VIII's only male heir): why do we know so little about him and about his six years of reign? Most people who aren't familiar with this period of History don't even know that Henry VIII achieved his long desire and need for a male heir in his son with Jane Seymour, prince Edward of England.
When Henry died, Edward was only nine years old and became King of England, the first one of the new religion. His reign was a difficult one: rebellions came and went, people didn't accept the Reformation and still wanted the Catholic rites back... And the King was a child surrounded for people who wouldn't even blink to attempt to manipulate him to get what they wanted.
But here's the extraordinary thing about this and what I love the most about him: he was fiercely intelligent, devoted to learning and books since his most tender years - although he was a child for most of his life - and, most important of all, he had a gentle soul and was kind as his father never was in life. For all of this, many people in England saw in Edward a new dawn after the troubled reign of his father and put their hopes in the new king.
Sadly, these hopes wouldn't last for the king died when he was only fifteen and was beginning to control the kingdom on his own. The rest of the story is well-known: Mary I and Elizabeth I, which reign is called The Golden Age... But before them, there was their younger brother.
Certainly, Edward wasn't a saint and I'm not trying to say that, but one can't help but wonder what would have become of England with an adult Edward in the throne. He was fiercely devoted to the Reformation, nearly obsessed, and that could be dangerous, but I think that, above all, he cared about the wellbeing of his kingdom that some observes even said that "expectations about his Majesty will destroy him".
He was a child, he was King of England in a very difficult time and he knew how to stand up for his kingdom, despite of his young age. He was wise beyond his years, wise as few people are in their adulthood.
I ended this book on the 464 anniversary of his death and all I can say is "here's to King Edward of England, may your days never be forgotten".
October 2, 2024
#TudorNonfictionChallenge on StoryGraph hosted by @cha_ye
I would rate this 3.5 out of 5.
I read this hardcover through my library.
Brief Summary: Edward VI is the only Tudor monarch to not reign in his majority and as a result, he is often overshadowed by other members of his family. His reign was merely six years in the century dominated by his family, but with the information presented about his life and reign it is clear that these were some of the most consequential years in English history.
Thoughts: I enjoyed this book. As a lover of Tudor history, I often focus more on the women of the period and I have to admit to not being overly interested in Edward as a historical figure. Nevertheless, Skidmore shows the importance that Edward had on not only the reigns of his sister and cousin but religious practices across the British Isle. Given that his sister Elizabeth's reign was nearly 8 times as long as his many of the religious reforms that she made are often thought to be the foundations of the modern church. However, without Edward and his advisors paving the way it is possible that the successes often attributed to Elizabeth would even exist.
I do think that Skidmore does not paint a clear picture of Edward as a person within the text. However, this seems to be the result of the sources rather than a fault of his perspective. It's clear that Edward was viewed as spoiled, and intelligent, and likely would have given his father a run for his money, but the extent to which Edward impacted events happening around him remains unclear. Skidmore does argue that the diary that we have of Edward's thoughts should be taken at face value and not a reflection of his personality, but given the distance of time and his short life, it is still unclear the type of king Edward would have become.
Overall, this book provides a clear picture of the reign of Edward VI and is a necessary read for Tudor history lovers. While it might not provide clear answers about Edward it does paint a clear picture of his reign and how events unfolded to pave the way for Jane, Mary, and Elizabeth.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Animal cruelty, Death, Infidelity, Miscarriage, Sexism, Terminal illness, Torture, Violence, Xenophobia, Medical content, Religious bigotry, Death of parent, Murder, War, Classism, and Pandemic/Epidemic
I would rate this 3.5 out of 5.
I read this hardcover through my library.
Brief Summary: Edward VI is the only Tudor monarch to not reign in his majority and as a result, he is often overshadowed by other members of his family. His reign was merely six years in the century dominated by his family, but with the information presented about his life and reign it is clear that these were some of the most consequential years in English history.
Thoughts: I enjoyed this book. As a lover of Tudor history, I often focus more on the women of the period and I have to admit to not being overly interested in Edward as a historical figure. Nevertheless, Skidmore shows the importance that Edward had on not only the reigns of his sister and cousin but religious practices across the British Isle. Given that his sister Elizabeth's reign was nearly 8 times as long as his many of the religious reforms that she made are often thought to be the foundations of the modern church. However, without Edward and his advisors paving the way it is possible that the successes often attributed to Elizabeth would even exist.
I do think that Skidmore does not paint a clear picture of Edward as a person within the text. However, this seems to be the result of the sources rather than a fault of his perspective. It's clear that Edward was viewed as spoiled, and intelligent, and likely would have given his father a run for his money, but the extent to which Edward impacted events happening around him remains unclear. Skidmore does argue that the diary that we have of Edward's thoughts should be taken at face value and not a reflection of his personality, but given the distance of time and his short life, it is still unclear the type of king Edward would have become.
Overall, this book provides a clear picture of the reign of Edward VI and is a necessary read for Tudor history lovers. While it might not provide clear answers about Edward it does paint a clear picture of his reign and how events unfolded to pave the way for Jane, Mary, and Elizabeth.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Animal cruelty, Death, Infidelity, Miscarriage, Sexism, Terminal illness, Torture, Violence, Xenophobia, Medical content, Religious bigotry, Death of parent, Murder, War, Classism, and Pandemic/Epidemic
May 1, 2020
As others have noted, this work is predominately centered upon the individuals and events surrounding King Edward VI's life. There is a tendency when reading this work to be bounced back in time here and there, so one muct pay close attention if taking notes. Edwards own work: 'England's Boy King: The Diary of Edward VI, 1547-1553' is a great window into the king's own observations, feelings, and perspectives related to his life and reign. Also, British History Online remains a great research source: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/ as well as other offi ial document resources.
August 14, 2023
My "issue" with Edward's reign is that I just don't care about the nitty gritty of the Protestant Reformation...and that's the primary focus of Edward's reign because that's what he cared about the most and because his reign was so short. And I just find it so boring. That's not to say this book is boring! The book is top notch research and well written and I always appreciate bio's about Edward because while he is "forgotten" he's an important bridge in English history.
June 6, 2025
Sensing their presence, he turned his face towards them.
‘Are you so nigh? I thought ye had been further off.‘
‘We heard you speak to yourself, but what you said we know not’ they replied.
'I was praying to God.'
Sidney took the boy in his arms. Edward's last words were: ‘I am faint Lord have mercy upon me, and take my spirit.’
‘Are you so nigh? I thought ye had been further off.‘
‘We heard you speak to yourself, but what you said we know not’ they replied.
'I was praying to God.'
Sidney took the boy in his arms. Edward's last words were: ‘I am faint Lord have mercy upon me, and take my spirit.’
March 5, 2018
I suppose I was looking for a historical novel that wasn't so tedious. Not my cup of tea. I don't want to assign a lower rating as I'm not sure if the era of Edward VI might have influenced my opinion rather than the writing.
April 13, 2018
I love the reading about the Tudors , but don't know very much about Edward . This mainly concerned the power struggle around him and and although a little heavy going at times for me , I found it fascinating .
October 17, 2023
Even though it is only 16/17 years old this book is showing it's age. Although the book has some fine insights, I could have done without the snark against Mary I. It became tedious after a fashion. Hence the low rating. Was expecting better from a historian of Mr. Skidmore's calibre.
May 12, 2019
Interesting...filled in some of the missing bits of that time period for me.
August 31, 2021
A decent overview of the life of Edward VI. I found it somewhat disappointing though as the author relies very heavily on quotations from various sources.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews