I've rarely met a child under the age of 10 who *wasn't* some kind of tyrant -- even the best and most likable kids. And none of THEM had the power to order executions.
@@BlueSun2512 God, I remember that one! So scary! (For those who don't know, a small child has godlike powers over a community. To keep him calm, people constantly say how "good" everything is - even horrible things, like your loved ones just disappearing off the face of the earth.)
All I keot thinking during this excellent video was, poor little boy. That first portrait of him, showing a solemn and obviously bright child, and then the punishing list of lessons, the violent deaths of so many he knew and probably loved - no wonder he turned out as he did. And then at fifteen to know you are going to die, and have the responsibility of thinking about the succession - I could weep for him,
Totally agree with you. If he he had had the opportunity of being brought up with loving people, and perhaps with Elizabeth ( Mary would have been too old at that stage to have been bundled along with her 2 siblings) he might have had a chance of being a decent cratur. But not to be!! What a hellish life!!!
It's easy to pity, but hard to like, Edward VI. He was undoubtedly very intelligent, but I'm not sure how wise. I think he would have been a king people were afraid of.
@@kragary True, true - but he'd have had to wise up quick, had he survived. Surrounded by fawning courtiers and ambitious uncles, he was not in the best place to develop wisdom. Also, there seems to have been a streak of fanaticism in him, which did not bode well.
@@kragary Just to be unnecessarily perverse: you could argue that at age 16 Isabel of Castile had grown wise: Her brother Alfonso was the figurehead of a civil war against their half-brother King Enrique IV. Alfonso died extremely suddenly at age 14. The nobles who used him approached Isabel with an offer to have her continue the war and proclaim herself queen (in Castile, women could inherit). Isabel refused the offer. She suggested a truce with Enrique, with the condition that she be proclaimed his heir. This pushed aside the little girl, Juana, who may or may not have been Enrique's daughter. Anxious for peace, Enrique jumped on the offer. Many complications immediately followed, but Isabel managed to keep her position.
The Spanish ambassador had a few axes to grind, though, didn’t he? It was in his interests to demonise the Protestant boy whose birth had replaced Katherine of Aragons daughter and who continued to reform the English church and move it further away from Rome.
I heard "held the canopy over this most special baby Ed," not "baby's head" because I was caught in a sneeze at that same moment and I'm still laughing even though it was just my imagination 😂 thank-you Dr Kat for another lovely and informative video!
It is fascinating how extremely intelligent both Edward and Elizabeth were. Oh, how I truly wish I had a sixteenth or even just a twentieth of that intelligence.
I wonder if he would have turned out differently if his mom had lived. I know we can't put modern sensitivities on historical figures, but I believe that growing up without one of your parents would be traumatic at any time in history and potentially cause some issues if the proper support wasn't provided. Henry wasn't exactly a loving and caring father who would have filled the void of Jane Seymour as a single parent. Plus Edward saw two stepmothers come and go, one meeting a terrible end, before he got a proper stepmom figure in Katherine Parr. He must have had some serious issues, and his half-sisters must have too!
I think Edward was a kid, skillfully manipulated by older men. Maybe not, but the letter to Mary seems too cunning for a sibling. I bet he had help in its composition. Maybe he was wise and articulate beyond his years. That one sentence is the most "sideways" I've seen in a long time. I wonder what kind of king he would have been?
I reckon the main point with Edward is that he was a child for his whole rule. Think what we were like at 12, 13, 14, 15. We weren’t responsible for any important stuff and tbh we probs didn’t make great decisions about some trivial matters like what friends were worth our time or whether blue hair really suited us. Edward might have done a fine job kinging as an adult but he was a tween/teen pulled about by people all out for themselves, and I don’t think we should judge him any differently than we would any other child with a bunch of stuff to deal with that is a big ask of a mature adult.
Edward VI is one of the Great what ifs in history, what if Henry VIII much awaited trueborn son lived to old age? what if he continued the Tudor Dynasty?
Considering the Tudors' dictatorial style, egotism and general mean streak, I think the dynasty was sufficiently long as it was. I believe Queen Elizabeth was the pinnacle of her line, but a change of ruling dynasty was a good thing.
If he had lived, do you think Edward would have become like his Father was later in his life? If Lady Jane Grey was a half sister she was not in the line of succession was she? If not why did Mary have her beheaded when she took the throne? It doesn't seem like Lady Jane Grey was a threat And did Edward name Jane as queen because he didn't want a Catholic sister of his to be Queen?
Loving the new camera!! I don’t think his wishes would of been followed even if it had been passed by parliament. Mary would never have let it happen. Hard to say with his rule, I think he like his father would’ve been puppeted into the direction of what his counselors or favorite thought at the time. I also have a feeling he too, would’ve been obsessed with the succession. Marriage had been made.
I had always been interested in the Seymours and Edward VI. My interest increased late last year when I discovered I am descended from Jane Seymour’s sister Elizabeth Seymour. I’m interested what the remaining Seymour sisters thought of the events.
given how much he seemed to like his sister Elizabeth... i find it very odd that he would pass HER over for Lady Jane... without some commentary. oh i can see why he might pass her over - on grounds of her being of a questionable marriage- but i find it odd he wouldnt say anything. i can only assume that he was being very carefully led, and instructed, and that a good number of his words are... being put in his mouth. that said? i think very few children who get told over and over they are Gods chosen and destined king- etc etc, and who verifiably have courtiers "plucking their feathers" is going to be a very stable or reasonable child. if his father had some of the medical issues that he seemed to , then the boy may have inherited some instability... but certainly after being weakened by illness would have been... very irrational
I worked in film and television for 30 years. Toward the end of my time in that job, HD was starting to be used. And I know that under certain lighting conditions, HD had focus problems. It may be a matter of having brighter lights on the background than upon you. You look like you are much closer to the book shelves than you were before.
It is hard to know from such a distance and with so little evidence, but Edward seems too cold and dispassionate. His letter to Mary talks about filial affection, but can that be trusted? It could well be a crafty piece of diplomacy calculated to persuade her, a bit of gaslighting? HIs upbringing was probably confusing to him and may have lacked genuine affection. This video leaves me feeling he lacked empathy, even as he became a teenager, and that he had already replaced any natural, loving feeling for those around him with religious dogmatism. Having said that, I also wonder if what has been left behind, including his own writing, only represents the mask he wore. How much of what we have only reveals his way of preserving himself in a fraught time for himself and the country? When he came of age, would the person who emerged to rule have been a much more appealing and sympathetic figure? We will never know.
I think, based on what we know of him, he would have been as cruel as his father. Realistically, what else could we expect? Elite males were expected to act and behave in particular ways, Edward had his father as his role model and would have been indoctrinated in the cult of personality and method of rule of his father (to do otherwise would have been treasonable). It’s likely it was good thing he didn’t live too long.
Edward's tearing apart of the falcon is one of the most disturbing things I've ever heard. If it was true, then England was certainly spared a reign of terror.
Yes. I recall reading somewhere, but cannot attribute the assertion, that children who torture animals are more likely than other children to be psychopaths.
@@woodrow60 I think you're thinking of the signs of a serial killer. Most serial killers are psychopaths, but not all psychopaths are serial killers. That said, that isn't to say that Edward wasn't on that path if he really did tear up that falcon. Thankfully we'll never know.
Unfortunaterly, I doubt he would have been any better than his father. I think he would have had just as big of an ego as his father, if not bigger. He was too pampered as a child, like his father, and would probably acted in the same manner. I will never wish for the death of the young, but history is made of these tragedies, and England was thus shaped.
I always appreciate your ability to humanise figures that history seems to strip of their personhood at times. It never really occured to me the sheer gap in ages between Mary and Edward, let alone how insulting it must have seemed to a woman two decades his senior to be lectured and threatened by her pubescent younger brother. I enjoy little insights like that which puts into perspective that these people were much more than historical figures. They were people with complicated inner lives and complicated relationships. They each didn't exist in a vaccum.
Seeing stubborness is a Tudor trait and a temper Edward VI may have been a mini Henry VIII especially in his last two years of his life. His fights with Mary about religion were legendary. The terrible part about his upbringing is that he had very ambitious and greedy advisors in first Edward Seymour and later John Dudley. Had he lived longer he would no doubt would've turned on them.
He would have been worse then his father. Henry was timd as a child and didnt become brutal until much older. Edward was already brutal as a boy and arrogant.
If I hold on to the notion that Edward, like most children, are a reflection of their upbringing; I think as he became an absolute ruler he, like Queen Victoria, would quickly turn against those who controlled and manipulated them for power. I am not able to stretch to believing he would be a kind and forgiving ruler, but the thoughts he held important and who he trusted, would most likely change. Children hold important the beliefs that their most involved adults cherish. He was but a child. Thank you so much for this piece Dr. Kat.
Besides being spoiled, I wonder how abused, not physically but emotionally Edward was? He was under so much pressure and had huge expectations on such a young child. It doesn't look like he had parents or anyone he could rely on to love and support him like normal children. Even his father was raised with his sisters and by his mother. I think England escaped a very twisted King if he had grown up to have real power.
Actually, something leapt out at me during your video. Let me see if the timelines are correct: • When Elizabeth was 14, Thomas Seymour was caught “embracing” Elizabeth by his pregnant wife. Elizabeth was sent away. • Catherine Parr died following childbirth in September of 1548; Seymour was very eager to retain the 10-year-old girl in his household, where she stayed for about two months. • In January of 1549, an armed Seymour sneaks into the bedchamber of a boy whom he had been giving extravagant gifts to, to make the boy feel more grown-up and special. Frankly, in this day & age, we would view anyone who acted like that to be a hebefile-a pedo who is specifically attracted to pre-teen children as opposed to very young children. Has there been any research or discussion about that interpretation of Seymour’s actions-that he was less coldly manipulating Edward and more grooming him?
Really interesting and truly disturbing question! It certainly sounds like whatever his s*xual intentions towards Edward may have been, his behaviour there was clearly abusive, alternating threats & bribes it seems? And frankly it sounds like he straight-up SA'ed Elizabeth, whatever degree that progressed to, which is awful to think about 😢 I wonder how much those early experiences fed into her apparent later-life leeriness around marriage?
Thomas didn't want sex from his nephew the king.He wanted to marry Elizabeth and become king.He and his brother didn't agree and resented that his brother Edward Seymour was Lord Protector, and he really wasn't involved because there were men who didn't trust him, especially his own brother.Thomas thought if he got involved with Elizabeth, that he could marry her.His wife Katherine Parr found out and Elizabeth was sent away.He also wanted Lady Jane Grey to remain in his household after his wife,s death.Her parents especially her mother Frances Grey, Henry the Eight,s niece, did not like the idea.They weren't stupid especially her mother.Thomad broke into Edward,s room to bully his nephew and to have him give his blessing to either marry Elizabeth or Lady Jane Grey.Edward was to me a religious fanatic because of his religious upbringing.
He KNEW they were reading his words. He could never have shown any feelings. I can't imagine surviving a childhood when I could never express how I felt...
Edward VI is my problematic (as problematic as a child who died 500 years ago can be) fave. I can't judge him for what he would've been, but for what he was -- a kid who grew up in an unstable environment and went from spending his days studying and playing to literally ruling a country overnight, probably aware of the games courtiers played to control him but not having the life experience to navigate those situations and assert himself. I can't help but feel compassion for him, as well as Mary and Elizabeth. All of Henry's children were deeply scarred by their upbringing. It's sad.
He was a child and an adolescent, so his thinking skills were nowhere near mature enough to execute the responsibilities of being king. I don’t think we really know what his reign would have been like based on the information we have.
I know we don’t really think of Edward being traumatized by his father’s actions but I think he had to be. A revolving door of stepmothers, Henry’s tendency to execute his friends (and wives) had to leave some mark on Edward. Was he as traumatized as his sisters? Probably not but considering his coldness when it came to the execution of his uncles and threatening Mary- he seems to have emulated his father’s disregard for life. No one dared to disagree with Henry about his executions, in Edward’s young mind- could that have been normal for a king? His normal meter must have been broken somewhat by Henry’s actions.
Thomas Seymour killed his dog. That’s something kids might take really seriously. And it’s also traumatic. The stuff with his uncles was in general traumatic, and he was probably repressing because he probably didn’t think it was very kingly to have crying fits. Which would be setting himself up for all kinds of problems later. Almost getting kidnapped would also leave you feeling very vulnerable and in need of a hard outer shell. And who knows what Edward Seymour took him to make him more amenable to signing the death warrant for Thomas. Likewise with the real life demonstration of the Wheel of Fortune going on around him, one uncle killing the other and being killed, which was a dangerous demonstration of family disloyalty and the value of life for a kid that age.
@@arsangelica6858 I don’t disagree but I think he was traumatized even before Thomas Seymour’s kidnapping attempt. He never really had stability in his life. He knew several of the people his father executed- in some cases, he was probably somewhat close to them and the had to cope with the fact his father killed them. We can’t really forget the effect Henry’s very narcissistic nature had on Edward and his sisters. Imagine having to explain to a toddler that his father’s closest advisor had been executed, his new stepmother sent away only for another new stepmother to be executed a short time later. I truly think that since no one could point out the immorality of Henry’s actions, Edward came to think they were normal and expected of kings.
Oh, very true. His view of the value of human life had to be warped. The dissonance between what he read in books and what he experienced in real life had to do something to him. I don’t know if he would have rejected his father, chosen his philosophers to align with his father, or continued in some convoluted set of justifications.
I definitely feel like the accounts of his behavior indicate some severe trauma from his upbringing and from the constant political turmoil surrounding him, rather than necessarily any sociopathy or similar in his natural character...? I don't feel like we can read too much into his diary either, given it would be been very much something accessible by his adult supervisors & advisers rather than something in which he could privately express any of his real personal thoughts or feelings.
He seems to me to have been a very rigid young man. I think he would have become a very cruel king. Of course he had tremendous pressures on him way beyond his years and probably was tutored in this rigid way of thinking. I can't even imagine how stressed he must have been. There was so much intrigue around him. Those were terrible times. I think the camera is great and you look wonderful! I thank you for speaking slower. Many times in the past you would offer so much information a little too quickly for my old brain to absorb it. This pace was perfect.
I cannot imagine a kid of 13-14 torturing and killing a falcon by his bare hands. If the falcon from the story had been alive, it would have responded & attacked the boy. A falcon is a raptor, it would have fought for its life.
First of all, an incredibly thorough and interesting video! Very well done! Secondly, just a brief (or not so) responses to some of the various points that you addressed! We know that Edward Seymour was a very powerful person, even during Henry VIII's later reign, frequently clashing with Bishop Stephen Gardiner and his allies. I am assuming his power & ambition only increased into Edward's reign, especially being head Regent to the King. As for Uncle Tommy (Seymour), I think we have too many examples of his poor behavior, to believe that he was merely a scapegoat or wrongfully charged of any crime. Lastly, I want to address the falcon "incident". This is the golden age of gossip and rumors, in England (most of the Tudor era was). An example would be such as, Edward's dog, grabbing the falcon, then Edward trying to free the bird from the dog's mouth, resulted in it being torn apart. The Spanish Ambassador, only too happy to make the young protestant king, look like a crazed killer of birds, recounted his "version" to others. So who knows what really happened! Again, an excellent video! Many Thanks!
I know that he was being taught to write essays dispassionately, but the cold way in which he spoke of his uncles’ deaths has always made me wonder if he was a sociopath.
I'm not sure how much emotion he could reasonably put in a document that was for public consumption. I read that mostly as disassociation. Children in stressful environments learn to compartmentalize very quickly. The death of his father and becoming king at 9 years old had to have been very traumatic.
HI Kat, just curious but do you know why Henry VIII didn't marry off his daughters and if Mary had married at a younger age and produced one or more grandsons do you think this may have altered his later behaviour? Great channel. Thanks for all your work. Robyn
With Mary, by the time she was old enough to get married, he was busy declaring her a bastard and therefore devaluing her on the european marriage market.
They weren't considered legitimate, all the time, shall we say? Elizabeth was never legitimate, for the Catholic rulers on the Continent. But Elizabeth had decided she would never marry. Mary though, wanted to marry, and even a Bavarian princeling(cousin to Anne Cleves) came to England to court her but Henry made him leave. First I think Henry wanted to punish Catherine, by not letting her marry, as Catherine wouldn't have allowed Mary to marry a Protestant, as Mary was her mother's daughter. Then he couldn't let her marry and leave him as she had become the mother of his younger children. It was only when he died, the family really blew up along confessional lines.
Based on my own studies of Edward VI, he was growing into a harsh, intolerant, fanatically Protestant monarch. He would likely have instituted an inflexible policy of Catholic suppression (beginning with his sister Mary, whom he eventually would have made an example of...or driven into exile in Spain). Such bigoted policies likely would have included fines, imprisonment, and execution for violations of and resistance against the state-sanctioned Protestant church. I further believe that the celebrated English literary arts of the Elizabethan era (Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson) would not have found a very friendly, patronizing environment in the midst of a hypothetical Tudor-Edwardian regime, with it's intense, proto-Puritan religiosity. I believe England would have become a very dour, joyless realm, almost Cromwellian in its extremist Protestantism, and zealots would have found great favor and advancement in Edward's court.
As much as I've always found the teenaged Edward to be an extremely cold figure, your video has left me wondering who loved him in all these powerplays. With the forced exit of Catherine Parr from his life, it seems that any hope of familial love was destroyed by his father, and uncles leaving him with no one he could trust.
@@katelynnwoods I actually think Edward VI had the potential to be even scarier than his father. Henry at least wanted to be liked, which occasionally tempered his brutality - Edward seems indifferent to what others thought of him, or even to want to be feared.
@@sjj39 you wouldn’t believe the level of irrationality and frankly, stupidity of some of these people. They think history is some kind of soap opera and people are sweet little innocent characters who are as soaked in the cult of woke as they are.
So was the falcon supposed to already be dead before he pulled its feathers out? You'd get all pecked and scratched to pieces if you tried to do that to a live bird of prey after all.
That's part of what confuses me about the bare practicality of the scene, as I babbled in a comment elsewhere here. No matter what, it just feels improbable: If the falcon is alive, even if hooded, there would be a fight of some kind and Edward would definitely be wounded by the animal. Even if it's already dead (and why would Edward have a dead falcon in his room?), plucking and tearing is long, long, very hard work: You can't just pull out feathers, and ripping (or even cutting) takes time and much muscle. I don't know. The story feels just .... wrong.
@@spews1973 Well, to be fair the ambassador, he does give a source for the story, and then gives a source against the story. I'm inclined to believe the ambassador didn't make it up, but is definitely reporting the most extreme version he might have heard of whatever it was that may or may not have happened.
Definitely sounds like it could be a big fish story. Could have easily started as him making a snarky comment or having a rant while ripping/cutting apart a cooked bird that had been served to him. Over time a little exaggeration here, little dramatic embellishment there, next thing you know it's grown into a tale of him killing a falcon with his bear hands and plucking it's feathers out before ripping it to pieces while threatening people.
"I, Joffrey of the House Baratheon, First of My Name, the rightful king of the Andals and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm..."
In the "cold" way he wrote of the deaths.. I see a young man who is very VERY aware of what is going on around him and knows he can't let his emotions and thoughts be recorded. For those Uncles to have reached that point, they had enough strong enemies that Edward didn't need to enflame. He gave the basic information and keep all else to himself. That's not cold, it's aware. As for the Falcon story, It sounds almost as much as a tale from someone other than him, for the purpose of making sure others might fear him. And even if he did do it, Well, it was an effective warning and when you have spent 5 or so years having to watch others make the decisions and then putting your name on it, you might just decide that it is time to show your spirit. It certainly would not have caused the type of reaction many today feel about the death of an innocent animal since he was "supposedly" warning the men around him that he had the power to do that to them.
Not to mention the fact that this was an age when living humans were torn apart in front of crowds in public and in private on torture machines... So what's a bird? Can't judge him by modern standards, as revolting as it is.
It would have been harder to skip over Mary for Elizabeth than to use their technical illegitimacy to rule them both out - harder for Mary to object to perhaps?
I don’t think the Dudley’s trusted Elizabeth enough to include her in the plot. That would mean Guildford Dudley would have needed to marry Elizabeth and given what happened with Thomas Seymour they might not have been willing to take a chance on her. Ironically, she later fell in love with Guildford’s brother, the earl of Leicester. As a royal princess, Elizabeth would also have nothing to lose in blowing the whistle on the plot either. The Grey’s were a safer bet for the Dudley’s in that they had much more to gain by being included in it so their silence could be relied upon. Still I have wondered if the Dudley’s might have felt Elizabeth out as a possible alternative to Mary and decided she was not a safe bet. She was the logical next choice after Mary. Maybe they felt she was too loyal to her elder sister.
I don't think we can read too much into his formal statements about his uncles' deaths. As mentioned in the video, those sentences might have been more like an academic exercise or written for public perusal, NOT as a personal record or as a way to deal with grief. In fact, given the very self-controlled nature of much of courtly life, to react with too much emotion might not have been seen as regal or even Christian. One DOES have to wonder, however, what effect Edward's life and culture had on his emotional development. First of all, the very facts of his life would have encouraged narcissism. He was, after all, the long-awaited heir of Henry VIII and had servants bowing to him from his cradle. Emotional trauma is also very real and has serious, long-term consequences, and certainly most children at that time probably were traumatized in one way or another. Edward would have had to emotionally deal with the fact that the father he probably respected (and loved, to a degree) had two queens executed, plus countless other people. Even if not traumatized, children at that time may have become more calloused to death than we are; they rather had to be.
This. People read those entries in his chronicles and diagnose him as some sort of psychopath devoid of empathy, when it’s likely that journal was more of an academic/official document than a private diary. We just don’t know how he felt. And it does seem British monarchs were (and are still) expected to be emotionally restrained. Edward was most likely aware of it.
It was really unfortunate for Edward VI that his mother had passed away right after he was born. She was said to be a very kind and loving woman, and reconciled Mary and Elizabeth with their father. She would probably been a good influence on her son.
I feel a sense of joy every time your videos pop up in my feed. This one was especially welcome because Edward is rarely covered as a monarch in his own right and is often relegated to just a transitional figure, or a foil for Mary’s Catholicism
Didn't he once kill a falcon, pluck off all its feathers, tear it into four pieces and promise to do the same to one of his tutors if he felt they were being annoying? Even if that was just a rumor, the very fact that it was believable enough to be passed down into actual history books points to the fact that he probably was a future tyrant. Rumours like that don't just spring into existence, there had to be a reason. Edward probably did something similarly awful for that rumour to begin.
😳... that's some serious serial killer vibe going on there... and I can believe that it's true...but who knows? Dr Kat might have some twist on it we don't know. She does dive deep!
@@lspthrattan She does indeed mention it, and quotes what she says is the only known documentation on it. It's a positive for me that the Spanish ambassador hedges, admitting that while some people said the incident did happen, others said it didn't - this sounds like a rather honest person giving this report. I have a lot of trouble believing it, at least as it's described. It's entirely possible that *something* happened, but the bare practicalities of the action confuse me, and if anything happened, it might have been exaggerated (for all we know, it may have started out as a whole roasted chicken he tore apart, and then the story blew up, like a fishing story). Incidentally, reportedly, he did this as a warning to his "governors" not his tutors. He is warning them that that while they're in control now, soon he'd be in control and they wouldn't be able to pick at him from all directions anymore. It throws a particular light on the target and why the target is there. If this is true to any degree, Edward is anxious to reach his majority and begin to act independently. And he is apparently not at all happy with the way things are being done in his name. He does seem to have been, like Mary, deeply invested in his view of religion, dangerously and intolerantly fixed on his ideals, and willing to tear down (e.g. the succession crisis) in order to maintain or build up. Unless something would have drastically changed, had he matured into an adult, I can't help but feel it would have been at least as dangerous living under Edward VI as it was under Henry VIII and Mary Tudor.
@melenatorr - I agree with most of what you expressed but I don't know that he would have been any worse than Mary or Elizabeth. He was receiving religious training from Cranmer.
I think it's interesting to compare and contrast king Edward and king Tutankhamen. both were sons of "heretic" kings- kings who oversaw tremendous religious reforms at the price of stability to the kingdom. both became absolute rulers at an extremely young age, and died young without children. Both had a succession crisis and tremendous turmoil the reign of their successors. I think the two major differences is that A. Henry's reformation was part of a larger movement while Akhenaten's was isolated (which is probably the reason why Edward continued the reformation while Tutankhamen returned to conservatism) and B. Edward's sisters (particularly Elizabeth) were strong enough to maintain power while Tutankhamen's successors were weaker and fell to outside influences. it does make me wonder if tut acted like Edward...
The first thing the Lords Protector did was to grant themselves dukedoms, which says a lot about their motivations. This was excused by insisting that they required such high status to represent the king, but I wonder. Plenty of land and wealth came with such dukedoms, to “support their high estate”. It’s a better, more egalitarian, world today. I don’t object to titles per se, if a country values that tradition, but I do object to aristocratic privilege in law, government and finance, “birth” or social status shouldn’t limit one’s opportunities.
I think there's a little more feeling in his childhood letters, especially to his sister, Elizabeth - he does seem to have been fond of her, as much as he was fond of anyone.
I always assumed that Edward would have doubled down on his father’s autocratic tendencies. He would have come of age 100% in control of everything, almost the same same as Henry. No parents, no grandmother, nobody to check him. Except that Henry at least grew up without being told every day of his entire life that he was god’s gift to the world, since he wasn’t the heir. And he had a mother until his teens to keep things more balanced, not to mention siblings closer to his age and more on an equal standing with him than a couple of quasi-illegitimate older half sisters. Edward not only missed out on any humility this may have instilled, he didn’t even have a spare behind him to keep him from being the “one and only hope” of his father, and of course the entire country. It would take an extremely strong person to come out of that with any kind of balance.
I have always been surprised that Edward got such a Protestant education and that he became so strongly Protestant. I think his dad would have been happy if the kingdom continued in a path that eventually became Church of England, a liturgical faith that had no connection to Rome. I would think Henry would have foreseen religious strife coming from a strong change to Protestantism with Edward's reign. Therefore I wonder if Henry was paying attention to his son's schooling? Perhaps when Edward was of an age to tackle more serious matter, Henry was too ill to pay attention? Plus, how deep was his religious education before he became king? I think Henry's religious changes were for his own expedience. Some scholars say Henry basically died a Catholic in that his religious practices were still Catholic in nature, minus the pope. If Edward's reign had followed a more familiar Church of England type faith, Mary's reign might have been easier and things might have been reasonably ironed out by the time Elizabeth came to the throne, IMO.
From across the pond, I think Edward's continuance would have denied history one of it's most interesting and long lived monarchs - namely, Elizabeth. In this modern day there are very few historical figures that continue to pique the public's interest, but Elizabeth is one of them. Great segment, thanks!
He seems like a humorless prig. I think he was smart, with a sterling education to gild the lily, but I see him as being as cold and merciless as his father (a horrible person). I don't know if he would have been a good king--he seems to have lacked humanity, though he might have grown into that under good influence. Sometimes I wonder what might have happened if he'd survived and married (to that fool Mary, Queen of Scots?) and had children. Would they have been icily brilliant prigs, too? I had read about the falcon plucking incident, too, and thought 'Wow...imagine him getting hold of a person that annoyed him, had he grown up!'. The account of his final illness and death is utterly heartbreaking, whatever his shortcomings.
Another thought I just had was that he was being raised as the only son, whereas Henry VIII had been the spare before his older brother, Arthur, had died. This would give Edward a sense of entitlement that Henry hadn't had. But also, Henry's injuries from jousting had led to undeniable pain, which can make nearly anyone go mad. Who knows? There have been many kings throughout Jewish history that have had horrendous fathers but have become wise rulers in their own right.
Dr. Kat, have you read the story of The Prince and the Pauper? Because I would love for a Tudor historian like yourself to review it and compare at least some of it to the actual events presented within the story as we know it.
Unlike many opinions of Edward, I find I actually LIKE what I see of his Private, Personal Self. I refer to one of his Diary entries where he, with pardonable youthful male pride, lists his triumphs in games and competitions with his playmates. I also look past the stiff, slightly priggish tones of the friebdly advice he gives his (probably) Best Friend, Barnaby Fitzpatrick when the latter was abroad, being trained for his future as a Knight of The Realm. I find it telling that Edward's love-and innate bossiness toward Barnaby even touches ever-so-briefly upon the subject of women: that Barnaby not ignore manly games and pursuits in favor of more grown-up dalliances with "women". I find I like Edward in spite-indeed BECAUSE- of these very human actions which make this Golden Child not of a precious, but hard metal, but of a Soul yearning, no, TENDING toward the generous when dealing with the very few which this precocious, perceptive young Monarch knew loved him as HE loved them. PRECIOUS BLOODY FEW, INDEED!
Thank you for another engaging video, Dr. Kat. Thank you as well for mentioning Simon Renard as the source for the young king tearing apart his falcon anecdote. Regardless of whether Edward plucked & tore apart a valuable pet, he seems to have been a hard little Tudor character. His letters to his sister Mary are those of a boy who is determined to be obeyed as king. Given time, I believe that Edward would have become as tyrannical as his grand-father, his father & his sister Mary. I suspect that Elizabeth observed the chaos created by her father & siblings -- & she *learned* from their examples.
I agree, especially regarding Elizabeth. I think she benefitted from some hardship in her early life, whereas Edward was spoiled by too much deference and feeding of his self-importance, and Mary by too much hardship and neglect.
As a mother I have always felt so sorry for Edward as he lay dying. He would have been surrounded by people of high rank, manipulating him to the very end. No one there to comfort him
I can’t imagine he would have been a fair, wise, or popular monarch… he was raised and manipulated by his Seymour uncles for their own personal goals… not very good examples. Before your video, I hadn’t really thought much about his character, but am not surprised considering the characters of his parents and the grasping courtiers always surrounding him. Although quite young, why didn’t he marry and try to father a child when he realized his illness was likely fatal? Fifteen year old girls were often married in Tudor England…. Would it have been out of the realm of possibility for Edward?
He straight UP would have imprisoned Mary, I have little doubt; he also would have forced Elizabeth into a marriage she wouldn’t have appreciated. Let’s not even get into the religious aspect…if we thought Mary’s bias was bad, Edward against the Catholics would have been VERY bad, and I think he would have drawn ire from Spain, France and Rome, starting a war.
Imagine if he had married Elizabeth off and she’d had children and then Edward and Mary had still died without children, she was an amazing queen, her kids may have been phenomenal ( as long as her husband wasn’t an idiot and had let her get on with doing her queenly stuff)!
@@erikamassey3582 True, but that’s the thing: Elizabeth was the smart one. Her husband would have surely been a complete idiot, and I bet he’d have “accidentally” ended up in the Tower.
Dr. Kat, I believe the "Councilors ' were all power hungry, vacuous, self-serving vipers. AND, to rip apart a falcon displays a serious level of depravity, in my humble opinion. love, maureen
I don't think Edward's wishes would have been followed even if he had lived to his majority. Blood is thicker than water (or ink) and the English knew who the real Queen was.
The men in power would have seen a King preferable to a Queen. England had no history of a successful Queen. One of the reasons Elizabeth did not name James the official heir until the very end was a fear that there would be an attempt to overthrow her in his favor. So if he had lived long enough for Jane to have a son it might have worked.
It seems to me that Edward VI was one of many (English) monarchs whose political agenda was driven by the obsessive desire to maintain power at whatever cost, meaning alliances were dispensable if another alliance meant maintaining or expanding power.
There were reasons Mary I was welcomed to the throne with rejoicing from the people. Had Edward VI lived, I think England would have spiraled further into a Puritanical Christianity that it may never have gotten out of. Think Oliver Cromwell, but with no alternative figure to come back to save people from an austere, joyless existence with strict moral policing.
I believe if Edward had made it to adulthood he would have been much like Elizabeth and Mary, a Tudor ruler who believed they should be obeyed. After all Mary's enforcement of the Catholic Church, widely pushed by Foxe, was pretty much in line with how religions were enforced during that time. He would have been very much like most of the aristocrats of the time, except I think he may have had a little more interest in America as a counter to French and Spanish influence there.
If Edward had out lived his sister Mary but died soon afterwards, would there have been an Elizabeth Tudor/Grey rivalry to the true king or Queen? Obviously those 5 extra years could have seen Elizabeth married off to a Grey or protestant prince or a falling out with the Greys and the Grey heirs being unselected.
I honestly believe that Edward VI would have been remembered as one of England's bloodiest kings if he had lived. He never knew the "benevolent" King Henry VIII, his only model was the rotting old tyrant. Add to that the press of Protestants surrounding him, his problems with Catholic Mary, etc. and I personally believe he would have felt compelled to rid England of Catholicism, no matter the cost.
A video about the sadistic and opportunist Richard Rich would be interesting. I don't understand how this awful person manages to remain in favor under Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I.
Another "what if" to consider if Edward VI had lived (that just occurred to me as I was reading others' comments) is about colonization. If he had pushed a Puritan agenda, and the church had been further reformed, would there have been a Separatist movement? Would the Scrooby group have ended up in Massachusetts? Would there have been a civil war? The dominoes fall. All the international dynamics in Europe would have been different, and the competition of England to carve out its own piece of the New World would have taken on a different character. There might not have been a USA or Canada. We would have been very different--if we had ever come into being!
Eddie was a TEEN-AGER! He had his uncles pulling the strings to share his power. History can’t expect that he would have had the wisdom or experience of a man. He was manipulated to a large degree. Dr Kat, you’re the cat’s meow!!❤❤
Definitely manipulated, at least at the beginning. From _Edward the Boy King_, I get the impression that from about age 14, he understood the manipulation and did what he could to exert _his_ will and show _his_ intellect. The opening scenes of _Lady Jane_ (1986 film) suggest that his uncles and advisors may have deliberately poisoned him (killed him slowly) and forced him to create/amend his "device for the succession" so they could put on the throne someone they could more easily manipulate (not necessarily Jane Grey, but - because a Queen's consort became, effectively, King - Guilford Dudley).
Loosing your parents your sister's fighting you devoid of any great affections. Locked up in a palace in order to protect you from viruses and plagues .yes I can imagine life not a bed of roses for the boy king.
I would imagine we can also look to his Father and his sisters as to what his character could have become. They all seem to be very strong willed and have a hot temper.
Edward is so easily forgotten in the discussion of Tudor era history that I’m glad I’m seeing your video and more popping up to talk about him. His reign is such an interesting period, and his personality and character is intriguing to me. I wish there was more exploration of Edward, it was nice while it lasted that the Becoming Elizabeth show finally gave Edward some chance to shine as his own person.
I've rarely met a child under the age of 10 who *wasn't* some kind of tyrant -- even the best and most likable kids. And none of THEM had the power to order executions.
Right? Most are like that kid in the classic Twilight Zone episode, “It’s a Good Life.” I imagine Edward would have been just like that lol! 😮
@@BlueSun2512 God, I remember that one! So scary! (For those who don't know, a small child has godlike powers over a community. To keep him calm, people constantly say how "good" everything is - even horrible things, like your loved ones just disappearing off the face of the earth.)
Nonsense.@@BlueSun2512
All I keot thinking during this excellent video was, poor little boy. That first portrait of him, showing a solemn and obviously bright child, and then the punishing list of lessons, the violent deaths of so many he knew and probably loved - no wonder he turned out as he did. And then at fifteen to know you are going to die, and have the responsibility of thinking about the succession - I could weep for him,
Totally agree with you. If he he had had the opportunity of being brought up with loving people, and perhaps with Elizabeth ( Mary would have been too old at that stage to have been bundled along with her 2 siblings) he might have had a chance of being a decent cratur. But not to be!! What a hellish life!!!
It's easy to pity, but hard to like, Edward VI. He was undoubtedly very intelligent, but I'm not sure how wise. I think he would have been a king people were afraid of.
Agreed.
No one is wise at fifteen.
He could have been worse than Richard II 😵💫
@@kragary True, true - but he'd have had to wise up quick, had he survived. Surrounded by fawning courtiers and ambitious uncles, he was not in the best place to develop wisdom. Also, there seems to have been a streak of fanaticism in him, which did not bode well.
@@kragary Just to be unnecessarily perverse: you could argue that at age 16 Isabel of Castile had grown wise:
Her brother Alfonso was the figurehead of a civil war against their half-brother King Enrique IV. Alfonso died extremely suddenly at age 14. The nobles who used him approached Isabel with an offer to have her continue the war and proclaim herself queen (in Castile, women could inherit). Isabel refused the offer. She suggested a truce with Enrique, with the condition that she be proclaimed his heir. This pushed aside the little girl, Juana, who may or may not have been Enrique's daughter. Anxious for peace, Enrique jumped on the offer. Many complications immediately followed, but Isabel managed to keep her position.
The Spanish ambassador had a few axes to grind, though, didn’t he? It was in his interests to demonise the Protestant boy whose birth had replaced Katherine of Aragons daughter and who continued to reform the English church and move it further away from Rome.
Yet another awesome account of historical English people. As a American I love listening and learning from you. Love the cheeky comments as well. 😂😂
I heard "held the canopy over this most special baby Ed," not "baby's head" because I was caught in a sneeze at that same moment and I'm still laughing even though it was just my imagination 😂 thank-you Dr Kat for another lovely and informative video!
It is fascinating how extremely intelligent both Edward and Elizabeth were. Oh, how I truly wish I had a sixteenth or even just a twentieth of that intelligence.
I wonder if he would have turned out differently if his mom had lived. I know we can't put modern sensitivities on historical figures, but I believe that growing up without one of your parents would be traumatic at any time in history and potentially cause some issues if the proper support wasn't provided. Henry wasn't exactly a loving and caring father who would have filled the void of Jane Seymour as a single parent. Plus Edward saw two stepmothers come and go, one meeting a terrible end, before he got a proper stepmom figure in Katherine Parr. He must have had some serious issues, and his half-sisters must have too!
Love the what if moments in history. We will never know but curiosity will always wonder.
I really look forward to your videos, im fascinated by the tudor dynasty and you really make history interesting. Thank you x
You and History Calling make my Friday nights complete!
I think Edward was a kid, skillfully manipulated by older men. Maybe not, but the letter to Mary seems too cunning for a sibling. I bet he had help in its composition. Maybe he was wise and articulate beyond his years. That one sentence is the most "sideways" I've seen in a long time. I wonder what kind of king he would have been?
New camera! Your skin looks amazing! Truly!
How strong was he that he could rip a falcon apart if it was raw lovely to see your hair out
I’m thinking we need to deep dive the falcon story… I have been presented with some VERY interesting information in the last couple of days…
I reckon the main point with Edward is that he was a child for his whole rule. Think what we were like at 12, 13, 14, 15. We weren’t responsible for any important stuff and tbh we probs didn’t make great decisions about some trivial matters like what friends were worth our time or whether blue hair really suited us. Edward might have done a fine job kinging as an adult but he was a tween/teen pulled about by people all out for themselves, and I don’t think we should judge him any differently than we would any other child with a bunch of stuff to deal with that is a big ask of a mature adult.
Edward VI is one of the Great what ifs in history, what if Henry VIII much awaited trueborn son lived to old age? what if he continued the Tudor Dynasty?
Considering the iconoclasm of his reign , I’m glad it was relatively short
Considering the Tudors' dictatorial style, egotism and general mean streak, I think the dynasty was sufficiently long as it was. I believe Queen Elizabeth was the pinnacle of her line, but a change of ruling dynasty was a good thing.
@@p.l.g3190 Yes, it probably was - though I can't say the Stuarts were any great shakes, either.
@@londongael414 I agree. I wasn't thinking that far ahead. I was just shuddering at the thought of several centuries of Tudors.
@@p.l.g3190 Yup, when it comes to dictatorial monarchies, a change is as good as a rest. Well, as good as you're going to get, anyway!
I think it's terrible that Lady Jane was beheaded!
Sad too, to reflect that Edward was unwittingly and indirectly responsible by bringing the Grey family so clearly front and center.
Another incredible presentation, Dear Dr. Kat!
Woopsy Daisy!!!!! I think that listening to your video and remembering what I know about the Tudors, I just worked another interesting fact out!
If he had lived, do you think Edward would have become like his Father was later in his life? If Lady Jane Grey was a half sister she was not in the line of succession was she? If not why did Mary have her beheaded when she took the throne? It doesn't seem like Lady Jane Grey was a threat And did Edward name Jane as queen because he didn't want a Catholic sister of his to be Queen?
Loving the new camera!!
I don’t think his wishes would of been followed even if it had been passed by parliament. Mary would never have let it happen.
Hard to say with his rule, I think he like his father would’ve been puppeted into the direction of what his counselors or favorite thought at the time.
I also have a feeling he too, would’ve been obsessed with the succession. Marriage had been made.
I had always been interested in the Seymours and Edward VI. My interest increased late last year when I discovered I am descended from Jane Seymour’s sister Elizabeth Seymour. I’m interested what the remaining Seymour sisters thought of the events.
given how much he seemed to like his sister Elizabeth... i find it very odd that he would pass HER over for Lady Jane... without some commentary.
oh i can see why he might pass her over - on grounds of her being of a questionable marriage- but i find it odd he wouldnt say anything.
i can only assume that he was being very carefully led, and instructed, and that a good number of his words are... being put in his mouth.
that said? i think very few children who get told over and over they are Gods chosen and destined king- etc etc, and who verifiably have courtiers "plucking their feathers" is going to be a very stable or reasonable child.
if his father had some of the medical issues that he seemed to , then the boy may have inherited some instability... but certainly after being weakened by illness would have been... very irrational
I worked in film and television for 30 years. Toward the end of my time in that job, HD was starting to be used. And I know that under certain lighting conditions, HD had focus problems. It may be a matter of having brighter lights on the background than upon you. You look like you are much closer to the book shelves than you were before.
I think England had quite enough religious discord without such an ardent Protestant on the throne at this moment in history.
First, 😳. What a little terror. Second. You're gorgeous!!
Great video! Can you do one on Wassingson. Queen Elizabeth spy master.
Why didn’t he choose his Protestant sister over a Protestant cousin, unless Dudley was putting undue pressure on him?
Edward considered Elizabeth “illegitimate”
It is hard to know from such a distance and with so little evidence, but Edward seems too cold and dispassionate. His letter to Mary talks about filial affection, but can that be trusted? It could well be a crafty piece of diplomacy calculated to persuade her, a bit of gaslighting? HIs upbringing was probably confusing to him and may have lacked genuine affection. This video leaves me feeling he lacked empathy, even as he became a teenager, and that he had already replaced any natural, loving feeling for those around him with religious dogmatism. Having said that, I also wonder if what has been left behind, including his own writing, only represents the mask he wore. How much of what we have only reveals his way of preserving himself in a fraught time for himself and the country? When he came of age, would the person who emerged to rule have been a much more appealing and sympathetic figure? We will never know.
I think, based on what we know of him, he would have been as cruel as his father. Realistically, what else could we expect? Elite males were expected to act and behave in particular ways, Edward had his father as his role model and would have been indoctrinated in the cult of personality and method of rule of his father (to do otherwise would have been treasonable). It’s likely it was good thing he didn’t live too long.
"She probably taught him how to use a spoon."
I LIVE for your sass. 😀 Your videos are some of my favorite. And I think you're lovely in 4k.
I agree!!
Ha, that one got a laugh out of me too 😂
Edward's tearing apart of the falcon is one of the most disturbing things I've ever heard. If it was true, then England was certainly spared a reign of terror.
Yes. I recall reading somewhere, but cannot attribute the assertion, that children who torture animals are more likely than other children to be psychopaths.
If this was true Edward was a psychopath in the making
@@woodrow60 I think you're thinking of the signs of a serial killer. Most serial killers are psychopaths, but not all psychopaths are serial killers. That said, that isn't to say that Edward wasn't on that path if he really did tear up that falcon. Thankfully we'll never know.
@@adamolupin Thanks. A Tudor monarch as a serial killer is an unpleasant prospect. Henry was a monster as it was.
Agreed.
Unfortunaterly, I doubt he would have been any better than his father. I think he would have had just as big of an ego as his father, if not bigger. He was too pampered as a child, like his father, and would probably acted in the same manner. I will never wish for the death of the young, but history is made of these tragedies, and England was thus shaped.
I have read a great about the Tudors and their effect on the western world. Henry viii was a sob who
@@allisonnunez4432henry was a decent king until anne boleyn came around
I always appreciate your ability to humanise figures that history seems to strip of their personhood at times. It never really occured to me the sheer gap in ages between Mary and Edward, let alone how insulting it must have seemed to a woman two decades his senior to be lectured and threatened by her pubescent younger brother. I enjoy little insights like that which puts into perspective that these people were much more than historical figures. They were people with complicated inner lives and complicated relationships. They each didn't exist in a vaccum.
Seeing stubborness is a Tudor trait and a temper Edward VI may have been a mini Henry VIII especially in his last two years of his life. His fights with Mary about religion were legendary. The terrible part about his upbringing is that he had very ambitious and greedy advisors in first Edward Seymour and later John Dudley. Had he lived longer he would no doubt would've turned on them.
He would have been worse then his father. Henry was timd as a child and didnt become brutal until much older. Edward was already brutal as a boy and arrogant.
If I hold on to the notion that Edward, like most children, are a reflection of their upbringing; I think as he became an absolute ruler he, like Queen Victoria, would quickly turn against those who controlled and manipulated them for power. I am not able to stretch to believing he would be a kind and forgiving ruler, but the thoughts he held important and who he trusted, would most likely change. Children hold important the beliefs that their most involved adults cherish. He was but a child. Thank you so much for this piece Dr. Kat.
Besides being spoiled, I wonder how abused, not physically but emotionally Edward was? He was under so much pressure and had huge expectations on such a young child. It doesn't look like he had parents or anyone he could rely on to love and support him like normal children. Even his father was raised with his sisters and by his mother. I think England escaped a very twisted King if he had grown up to have real power.
Did anyone actually love him?
@@NimLeeGuyhis father did
@@NimLeeGuy Katherine Parr
Actually, something leapt out at me during your video. Let me see if the timelines are correct:
• When Elizabeth was 14, Thomas Seymour was caught “embracing” Elizabeth by his pregnant wife. Elizabeth was sent away.
• Catherine Parr died following childbirth in September of 1548; Seymour was very eager to retain the 10-year-old girl in his household, where she stayed for about two months.
• In January of 1549, an armed Seymour sneaks into the bedchamber of a boy whom he had been giving extravagant gifts to, to make the boy feel more grown-up and special.
Frankly, in this day & age, we would view anyone who acted like that to be a hebefile-a pedo who is specifically attracted to pre-teen children as opposed to very young children.
Has there been any research or discussion about that interpretation of Seymour’s actions-that he was less coldly manipulating Edward and more grooming him?
Really interesting and truly disturbing question! It certainly sounds like whatever his s*xual intentions towards Edward may have been, his behaviour there was clearly abusive, alternating threats & bribes it seems? And frankly it sounds like he straight-up SA'ed Elizabeth, whatever degree that progressed to, which is awful to think about 😢 I wonder how much those early experiences fed into her apparent later-life leeriness around marriage?
Thomas didn't want sex from his nephew the king.He wanted to marry Elizabeth and become king.He and his brother didn't agree and resented that his brother Edward Seymour was Lord Protector, and he really wasn't involved because there were men who didn't trust him, especially his own brother.Thomas thought if he got involved with Elizabeth, that he could marry her.His wife Katherine Parr found out and Elizabeth was sent away.He also wanted Lady Jane Grey to remain in his household after his wife,s death.Her parents especially her mother Frances Grey, Henry the Eight,s niece, did not like the idea.They weren't stupid especially her mother.Thomad broke into Edward,s room to bully his nephew and to have him give his blessing to either marry Elizabeth or Lady Jane Grey.Edward was to me a religious fanatic because of his religious upbringing.
He KNEW they were reading his words. He could never have shown any feelings. I can't imagine surviving a childhood when I could never express how I felt...
Absolutely. The level of scrutiny, pressure & lack of affection under which he would've seemingly been living is pretty awful to contemplate.
I can
Edward VI is my problematic (as problematic as a child who died 500 years ago can be) fave.
I can't judge him for what he would've been, but for what he was -- a kid who grew up in an unstable environment and went from spending his days studying and playing to literally ruling a country overnight, probably aware of the games courtiers played to control him but not having the life experience to navigate those situations and assert himself. I can't help but feel compassion for him, as well as Mary and Elizabeth. All of Henry's children were deeply scarred by their upbringing. It's sad.
He was a child and an adolescent, so his thinking skills were nowhere near mature enough to execute the responsibilities of being king. I don’t think we really know what his reign would have been like based on the information we have.
I agree. He was a child.
I’ve had a feeling that if Edward VI had lived as long as the other Tudors he would have been as bad or worse than his father.
I know we don’t really think of Edward being traumatized by his father’s actions but I think he had to be. A revolving door of stepmothers, Henry’s tendency to execute his friends (and wives) had to leave some mark on Edward. Was he as traumatized as his sisters? Probably not but considering his coldness when it came to the execution of his uncles and threatening Mary- he seems to have emulated his father’s disregard for life. No one dared to disagree with Henry about his executions, in Edward’s young mind- could that have been normal for a king? His normal meter must have been broken somewhat by Henry’s actions.
Thomas Seymour killed his dog. That’s something kids might take really seriously. And it’s also traumatic. The stuff with his uncles was in general traumatic, and he was probably repressing because he probably didn’t think it was very kingly to have crying fits. Which would be setting himself up for all kinds of problems later. Almost getting kidnapped would also leave you feeling very vulnerable and in need of a hard outer shell. And who knows what Edward Seymour took him to make him more amenable to signing the death warrant for Thomas. Likewise with the real life demonstration of the Wheel of Fortune going on around him, one uncle killing the other and being killed, which was a dangerous demonstration of family disloyalty and the value of life for a kid that age.
@@arsangelica6858 I don’t disagree but I think he was traumatized even before Thomas Seymour’s kidnapping attempt. He never really had stability in his life. He knew several of the people his father executed- in some cases, he was probably somewhat close to them and the had to cope with the fact his father killed them. We can’t really forget the effect Henry’s very narcissistic nature had on Edward and his sisters. Imagine having to explain to a toddler that his father’s closest advisor had been executed, his new stepmother sent away only for another new stepmother to be executed a short time later. I truly think that since no one could point out the immorality of Henry’s actions, Edward came to think they were normal and expected of kings.
Oh, very true. His view of the value of human life had to be warped. The dissonance between what he read in books and what he experienced in real life had to do something to him. I don’t know if he would have rejected his father, chosen his philosophers to align with his father, or continued in some convoluted set of justifications.
I definitely feel like the accounts of his behavior indicate some severe trauma from his upbringing and from the constant political turmoil surrounding him, rather than necessarily any sociopathy or similar in his natural character...? I don't feel like we can read too much into his diary either, given it would be been very much something accessible by his adult supervisors & advisers rather than something in which he could privately express any of his real personal thoughts or feelings.
He seems to me to have been a very rigid young man. I think he would have become a very cruel king. Of course he had tremendous pressures on him way beyond his years and probably was tutored in this rigid way of thinking. I can't even imagine how stressed he must have been. There was so much intrigue around him. Those were terrible times. I think the camera is great and you look wonderful! I thank you for speaking slower. Many times in the past you would offer so much information a little too quickly for my old brain to absorb it. This pace was perfect.
Yes, some people make video clips and more or less edit out all the pauses. It makes them sound completely hyper.
You can always click on "settings" and slow down the playback speed.
Remember that he was motherless…
I cannot imagine a kid of 13-14 torturing and killing a falcon by his bare hands. If the falcon from the story had been alive, it would have responded & attacked the boy. A falcon is a raptor, it would have fought for its life.
First of all, an incredibly thorough and interesting video! Very well done! Secondly, just a brief (or not so) responses to some of the various points that you addressed! We know that Edward Seymour was a very powerful person, even during Henry VIII's later reign, frequently clashing with Bishop Stephen Gardiner and his allies. I am assuming his power & ambition only increased into Edward's reign, especially being head Regent to the King. As for Uncle Tommy (Seymour), I think we have too many examples of his poor behavior, to believe that he was merely a scapegoat or wrongfully charged of any crime. Lastly, I want to address the falcon "incident". This is the golden age of gossip and rumors, in England (most of the Tudor era was). An example would be such as, Edward's dog, grabbing the falcon, then Edward trying to free the bird from the dog's mouth, resulted in it being torn apart. The Spanish Ambassador, only too happy to make the young protestant king, look like a crazed killer of birds, recounted his "version" to others. So who knows what really happened! Again, an excellent video! Many Thanks!
I know that he was being taught to write essays dispassionately, but the cold way in which he spoke of his uncles’ deaths has always made me wonder if he was a sociopath.
No empathy at an early age. On the road to narcissism.
Apple didn’t fall far from his father’s tree.
I'm not sure how much emotion he could reasonably put in a document that was for public consumption. I read that mostly as disassociation. Children in stressful environments learn to compartmentalize very quickly. The death of his father and becoming king at 9 years old had to have been very traumatic.
@@lizryan6289 To be fair, most medieval royals had a thread of narcissism. Well, the one's I've looked into anyway.
@@lizryan6289
. . . Or worse!
HI Kat, just curious but do you know why Henry VIII didn't marry off his daughters and if Mary had married at a younger age and produced one or more grandsons do you think this may have altered his later behaviour? Great channel. Thanks for all your work. Robyn
With Mary, by the time she was old enough to get married, he was busy declaring her a bastard and therefore devaluing her on the european marriage market.
I've also wondered about that. Most Royal women were married off when they were quite young in those days.
They weren't considered legitimate, all the time, shall we say? Elizabeth was never legitimate, for the Catholic rulers on the Continent. But Elizabeth had decided she would never marry.
Mary though, wanted to marry, and even a Bavarian princeling(cousin to Anne Cleves) came to England to court her but Henry made him leave.
First I think Henry wanted to punish Catherine, by not letting her marry, as Catherine wouldn't have allowed Mary to marry a Protestant, as Mary was her mother's daughter. Then he couldn't let her marry and leave him as she had become the mother of his younger children.
It was only when he died, the family really blew up along confessional lines.
My studies have suggested that he was truly his father's son....
Yes. The apple not falling far from the tree indeed.
Based on my own studies of Edward VI, he was growing into a harsh, intolerant, fanatically Protestant monarch. He would likely have instituted an inflexible policy of Catholic suppression (beginning with his sister Mary, whom he eventually would have made an example of...or driven into exile in Spain). Such bigoted policies likely would have included fines, imprisonment, and execution for violations of and resistance against the state-sanctioned Protestant church. I further believe that the celebrated English literary arts of the Elizabethan era (Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson) would not have found a very friendly, patronizing environment in the midst of a hypothetical Tudor-Edwardian regime, with it's intense, proto-Puritan religiosity. I believe England would have become a very dour, joyless realm, almost Cromwellian in its extremist Protestantism, and zealots would have found great favor and advancement in Edward's court.
That was a really interesting video - thank you.
I would love a video of John of Gaunt and Kathryn Swynford if that would be possible?
As much as I've always found the teenaged Edward to be an extremely cold figure, your video has left me wondering who loved him in all these powerplays. With the forced exit of Catherine Parr from his life, it seems that any hope of familial love was destroyed by his father, and uncles leaving him with no one he could trust.
I think we're very lucky he never actually ruled.
In every probability given the self importance of his father.
I said that on one of the other history channels and was berated because he was "only a child". Royalty were never children in Tudor times.
@@sjj39 True - they had to grow up fast.
@@katelynnwoods I actually think Edward VI had the potential to be even scarier than his father. Henry at least wanted to be liked, which occasionally tempered his brutality - Edward seems indifferent to what others thought of him, or even to want to be feared.
@@sjj39 you wouldn’t believe the level of irrationality and frankly, stupidity of some of these people. They think history is some kind of soap opera and people are sweet little innocent characters who are as soaked in the cult of woke as they are.
So was the falcon supposed to already be dead before he pulled its feathers out? You'd get all pecked and scratched to pieces if you tried to do that to a live bird of prey after all.
That's part of what confuses me about the bare practicality of the scene, as I babbled in a comment elsewhere here. No matter what, it just feels improbable:
If the falcon is alive, even if hooded, there would be a fight of some kind and Edward would definitely be wounded by the animal.
Even if it's already dead (and why would Edward have a dead falcon in his room?), plucking and tearing is long, long, very hard work: You can't just pull out feathers, and ripping (or even cutting) takes time and much muscle. I don't know. The story feels just .... wrong.
@@melenatorr Very true. You've now convinced me that the ambassador just made that story up.
@@spews1973 Well, to be fair the ambassador, he does give a source for the story, and then gives a source against the story. I'm inclined to believe the ambassador didn't make it up, but is definitely reporting the most extreme version he might have heard of whatever it was that may or may not have happened.
Definitely sounds like it could be a big fish story. Could have easily started as him making a snarky comment or having a rant while ripping/cutting apart a cooked bird that had been served to him. Over time a little exaggeration here, little dramatic embellishment there, next thing you know it's grown into a tale of him killing a falcon with his bear hands and plucking it's feathers out before ripping it to pieces while threatening people.
@@___Music_Is_Life___ Agreed: I called it a fish story somewhere in here too.
"I, Joffrey of the House Baratheon, First of My Name, the rightful king of the Andals and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm..."
In the "cold" way he wrote of the deaths.. I see a young man who is very VERY aware of what is going on around him and knows he can't let his emotions and thoughts be recorded. For those Uncles to have reached that point, they had enough strong enemies that Edward didn't need to enflame. He gave the basic information and keep all else to himself. That's not cold, it's aware. As for the Falcon story, It sounds almost as much as a tale from someone other than him, for the purpose of making sure others might fear him. And even if he did do it, Well, it was an effective warning and when you have spent 5 or so years having to watch others make the decisions and then putting your name on it, you might just decide that it is time to show your spirit. It certainly would not have caused the type of reaction many today feel about the death of an innocent animal since he was "supposedly" warning the men around him that he had the power to do that to them.
Indeed
Not to mention the fact that this was an age when living humans were torn apart in front of crowds in public and in private on torture machines... So what's a bird? Can't judge him by modern standards, as revolting as it is.
I've always wondered why Edward VI didn't name Elizabeth as his successor given that she was clearly Protestant in her religion.
There were some weird things about that will.
Apparently because he judged both his half-sisters, as illegitimate, despite them being restored to the Succession.
It would have been harder to skip over Mary for Elizabeth than to use their technical illegitimacy to rule them both out - harder for Mary to object to perhaps?
I don’t think the Dudley’s trusted Elizabeth enough to include her in the plot. That would mean Guildford Dudley would have needed to marry Elizabeth and given what happened with Thomas Seymour they might not have been willing to take a chance on her. Ironically, she later fell in love with Guildford’s brother, the earl of Leicester.
As a royal princess, Elizabeth would also have nothing to lose in blowing the whistle on the plot either. The Grey’s were a safer bet for the Dudley’s in that they had much more to gain by being included in it so their silence could be relied upon.
Still I have wondered if the Dudley’s might have felt Elizabeth out as a possible alternative to Mary and decided she was not a safe bet. She was the logical next choice after Mary. Maybe they felt she was too loyal to her elder sister.
I don't think we can read too much into his formal statements about his uncles' deaths. As mentioned in the video, those sentences might have been more like an academic exercise or written for public perusal, NOT as a personal record or as a way to deal with grief. In fact, given the very self-controlled nature of much of courtly life, to react with too much emotion might not have been seen as regal or even Christian. One DOES have to wonder, however, what effect Edward's life and culture had on his emotional development. First of all, the very facts of his life would have encouraged narcissism. He was, after all, the long-awaited heir of Henry VIII and had servants bowing to him from his cradle. Emotional trauma is also very real and has serious, long-term consequences, and certainly most children at that time probably were traumatized in one way or another. Edward would have had to emotionally deal with the fact that the father he probably respected (and loved, to a degree) had two queens executed, plus countless other people. Even if not traumatized, children at that time may have become more calloused to death than we are; they rather had to be.
This. People read those entries in his chronicles and diagnose him as some sort of psychopath devoid of empathy, when it’s likely that journal was more of an academic/official document than a private diary. We just don’t know how he felt. And it does seem British monarchs were (and are still) expected to be emotionally restrained. Edward was most likely aware of it.
Pausing at 22:00 to comment. The fact that the Prince writes in passive voice is notable. Not ‘I had him executed’ but ‘He had his head cut off.’
Hmm. His Dad wasnt trained to take over and floundered at 17. But taking over at 9 yrs.? Poor kid. 😢Excellent video. So interesting.
It was really unfortunate for Edward VI that his mother had passed away right after he was born. She was said to be a very kind and loving woman, and reconciled Mary and Elizabeth with their father. She would probably been a good influence on her son.
Coldness = disassociation. Who knows how much that poor boy had to compartmentalize, watching all the things that happened around him.
I feel a sense of joy every time your videos pop up in my feed. This one was especially welcome because Edward is rarely covered as a monarch in his own right and is often relegated to just a transitional figure, or a foil for Mary’s Catholicism
Didn't he once kill a falcon, pluck off all its feathers, tear it into four pieces and promise to do the same to one of his tutors if he felt they were being annoying? Even if that was just a rumor, the very fact that it was believable enough to be passed down into actual history books points to the fact that he probably was a future tyrant. Rumours like that don't just spring into existence, there had to be a reason. Edward probably did something similarly awful for that rumour to begin.
😳... that's some serious serial killer vibe going on there... and I can believe that it's true...but who knows? Dr Kat might have some twist on it we don't know. She does dive deep!
@@lspthrattan She does indeed mention it, and quotes what she says is the only known documentation on it. It's a positive for me that the Spanish ambassador hedges, admitting that while some people said the incident did happen, others said it didn't - this sounds like a rather honest person giving this report. I have a lot of trouble believing it, at least as it's described. It's entirely possible that *something* happened, but the bare practicalities of the action confuse me, and if anything happened, it might have been exaggerated (for all we know, it may have started out as a whole roasted chicken he tore apart, and then the story blew up, like a fishing story).
Incidentally, reportedly, he did this as a warning to his "governors" not his tutors. He is warning them that that while they're in control now, soon he'd be in control and they wouldn't be able to pick at him from all directions anymore. It throws a particular light on the target and why the target is there. If this is true to any degree, Edward is anxious to reach his majority and begin to act independently. And he is apparently not at all happy with the way things are being done in his name.
He does seem to have been, like Mary, deeply invested in his view of religion, dangerously and intolerantly fixed on his ideals, and willing to tear down (e.g. the succession crisis) in order to maintain or build up. Unless something would have drastically changed, had he matured into an adult, I can't help but feel it would have been at least as dangerous living under Edward VI as it was under Henry VIII and Mary Tudor.
I think that's a fantasy promoted by STARZ- "Becoming Elizabeth".
@melenatorr - I agree with most of what you expressed but I don't know that he would have been any worse than Mary or Elizabeth. He waa
@melenatorr - I agree with most of what you expressed but I don't know that he would have been any worse than Mary or Elizabeth. He was receiving religious training from Cranmer.
I think it's interesting to compare and contrast king Edward and king Tutankhamen. both were sons of "heretic" kings- kings who oversaw tremendous religious reforms at the price of stability to the kingdom. both became absolute rulers at an extremely young age, and died young without children. Both had a succession crisis and tremendous turmoil the reign of their successors. I think the two major differences is that A. Henry's reformation was part of a larger movement while Akhenaten's was isolated (which is probably the reason why Edward continued the reformation while Tutankhamen returned to conservatism) and B. Edward's sisters (particularly Elizabeth) were strong enough to maintain power while Tutankhamen's successors were weaker and fell to outside influences. it does make me wonder if tut acted like Edward...
Also, Tutankhamen was under extreme pressure to rescind Akhnatens religious "oddities."
I think that was Mary was too well loved by much of the population and Jane was relatively unknown outside of the family.
I also wrote my diary dispassionately as a child who knew it would be read by others. That just sounds like common sense.
The first thing the Lords Protector did was to grant themselves dukedoms, which says a lot about their motivations. This was excused by insisting that they required such high status to represent the king, but I wonder. Plenty of land and wealth came with such dukedoms, to “support their high estate”. It’s a better, more egalitarian, world today. I don’t object to titles per se, if a country values that tradition, but I do object to aristocratic privilege in law, government and finance, “birth” or social status shouldn’t limit one’s opportunities.
The cold diary makes me wonder if he kept a more private account of his feelings, one which has disappeared over time or which has been disappeared.
I think there's a little more feeling in his childhood letters, especially to his sister, Elizabeth - he does seem to have been fond of her, as much as he was fond of anyone.
I always assumed that Edward would have doubled down on his father’s autocratic tendencies. He would have come of age 100% in control of everything, almost the same same as Henry. No parents, no grandmother, nobody to check him. Except that Henry at least grew up without being told every day of his entire life that he was god’s gift to the world, since he wasn’t the heir. And he had a mother until his teens to keep things more balanced, not to mention siblings closer to his age and more on an equal standing with him than a couple of quasi-illegitimate older half sisters. Edward not only missed out on any humility this may have instilled, he didn’t even have a spare behind him to keep him from being the “one and only hope” of his father, and of course the entire country. It would take an extremely strong person to come out of that with any kind of balance.
I have always been surprised that Edward got such a Protestant education and that he became so strongly Protestant. I think his dad would have been happy if the kingdom continued in a path that eventually became Church of England, a liturgical faith that had no connection to Rome. I would think Henry would have foreseen religious strife coming from a strong change to Protestantism with Edward's reign. Therefore I wonder if Henry was paying attention to his son's schooling? Perhaps when Edward was of an age to tackle more serious matter, Henry was too ill to pay attention? Plus, how deep was his religious education before he became king? I think Henry's religious changes were for his own expedience. Some scholars say Henry basically died a Catholic in that his religious practices were still Catholic in nature, minus the pope.
If Edward's reign had followed a more familiar Church of England type faith, Mary's reign might have been easier and things might have been reasonably ironed out by the time Elizabeth came to the throne, IMO.
From across the pond, I think Edward's continuance would have denied history one of it's most interesting and long lived monarchs - namely, Elizabeth. In this modern day there are very few historical figures that continue to pique the public's interest, but Elizabeth is one of them. Great segment, thanks!
He seems like a humorless prig. I think he was smart, with a sterling education to gild the lily, but I see him as being as cold and merciless as his father (a horrible person). I don't know if he would have been a good king--he seems to have lacked humanity, though he might have grown into that under good influence. Sometimes I wonder what might have happened if he'd survived and married (to that fool Mary, Queen of Scots?) and had children. Would they have been icily brilliant prigs, too? I had read about the falcon plucking incident, too, and thought 'Wow...imagine him getting hold of a person that annoyed him, had he grown up!'. The account of his final illness and death is utterly heartbreaking, whatever his shortcomings.
Another thought I just had was that he was being raised as the only son, whereas Henry VIII had been the spare before his older brother, Arthur, had died. This would give Edward a sense of entitlement that Henry hadn't had. But also, Henry's injuries from jousting had led to undeniable pain, which can make nearly anyone go mad.
Who knows? There have been many kings throughout Jewish history that have had horrendous fathers but have become wise rulers in their own right.
Dr. Kat, have you read the story of The Prince and the Pauper? Because I would love for a Tudor historian like yourself to review it and compare at least some of it to the actual events presented within the story as we know it.
One for a future “proto-git” list, should one become necessary. 🤣
The new camera really does look lovely! So excited for the new video!☺️
Unlike many opinions of Edward, I find I actually LIKE what I see of his Private, Personal Self. I refer to one of his Diary entries where he, with pardonable youthful male pride, lists his triumphs in games and competitions with his playmates. I also look past the stiff, slightly priggish tones of the friebdly advice he gives his (probably) Best Friend, Barnaby Fitzpatrick when the latter was abroad, being trained for his future as a Knight of The Realm. I find it telling that Edward's love-and innate bossiness toward Barnaby even touches ever-so-briefly upon the subject of women: that Barnaby not ignore manly games and pursuits in favor of more grown-up dalliances with "women".
I find I like Edward in spite-indeed BECAUSE- of these very human actions which make this Golden Child not of a precious, but hard metal, but of a Soul yearning, no, TENDING toward the generous when dealing with the very few which this precocious, perceptive young Monarch knew loved him as HE loved them.
PRECIOUS BLOODY FEW, INDEED!
Thank you for another engaging video, Dr. Kat. Thank you as well for mentioning Simon Renard as the source for the young king tearing apart his falcon anecdote. Regardless of whether Edward plucked & tore apart a valuable pet, he seems to have been a hard little Tudor character. His letters to his sister Mary are those of a boy who is determined to be obeyed as king. Given time, I believe that Edward would have become as tyrannical as his grand-father, his father & his sister Mary. I suspect that Elizabeth observed the chaos created by her father & siblings -- & she *learned* from their examples.
I agree, especially regarding Elizabeth. I think she benefitted from some hardship in her early life, whereas Edward was spoiled by too much deference and feeding of his self-importance, and Mary by too much hardship and neglect.
Cheeky little brat!
As a mother I have always felt so sorry for Edward as he lay dying. He would have been surrounded by people of high rank, manipulating him to the very end. No one there to comfort him
Oh we'll 🤷
@@DavidBroadley-tw7ks cold
@@DavidBroadley-tw7ksread some of your other comments you've so generously shared on this channel, and you're either a troll or a very misinformed.
I can’t imagine he would have been a fair, wise, or popular monarch… he was raised and manipulated by his Seymour uncles for their own personal goals… not very good examples.
Before your video, I hadn’t really thought much about his character, but am not surprised considering the characters of his parents and the grasping courtiers always surrounding him.
Although quite young, why didn’t he marry and try to father a child when he realized his illness was likely fatal? Fifteen year old girls were often married in Tudor England…. Would it have been out of the realm of possibility for Edward?
He straight UP would have imprisoned Mary, I have little doubt; he also would have forced Elizabeth into a marriage she wouldn’t have appreciated. Let’s not even get into the religious aspect…if we thought Mary’s bias was bad, Edward against the Catholics would have been VERY bad, and I think he would have drawn ire from Spain, France and Rome, starting a war.
Imagine if he had married Elizabeth off and she’d had children and then Edward and Mary had still died without children, she was an amazing queen, her kids may have been phenomenal ( as long as her husband wasn’t an idiot and had let her get on with doing her queenly stuff)!
@@erikamassey3582 True, but that’s the thing: Elizabeth was the smart one. Her husband would have surely been a complete idiot, and I bet he’d have “accidentally” ended up in the Tower.
Yea, I'm out at falcon torturing. Of course this was the era of bear baiting and eating swans. Lovely people.
I think it is clear that so much was manipulated by his caretakers. His predecessors ruled cruelly.
Dr. Kat, I believe the "Councilors ' were all power hungry, vacuous, self-serving vipers. AND, to rip apart a falcon displays a serious level of depravity, in my humble opinion. love, maureen
I don't think Edward's wishes would have been followed even if he had lived to his majority. Blood is thicker than water (or ink) and the English knew who the real Queen was.
The men in power would have seen a King preferable to a Queen. England had no history of a successful Queen. One of the reasons Elizabeth did not name James the official heir until the very end was a fear that there would be an attempt to overthrow her in his favor. So if he had lived long enough for Jane to have a son it might have worked.
It seems to me that Edward VI was one of many (English) monarchs whose political agenda was driven by the obsessive desire to maintain power at whatever cost, meaning alliances were dispensable if another alliance meant maintaining or expanding power.
There were reasons Mary I was welcomed to the throne with rejoicing from the people. Had Edward VI lived, I think England would have spiraled further into a Puritanical Christianity that it may never have gotten out of. Think Oliver Cromwell, but with no alternative figure to come back to save people from an austere, joyless existence with strict moral policing.
I believe if Edward had made it to adulthood he would have been much like Elizabeth and Mary, a Tudor ruler who believed they should be obeyed. After all Mary's enforcement of the Catholic Church, widely pushed by Foxe, was pretty much in line with how religions were enforced during that time. He would have been very much like most of the aristocrats of the time, except I think he may have had a little more interest in America as a counter to French and Spanish influence there.
If Edward had out lived his sister Mary but died soon afterwards, would there have been an Elizabeth Tudor/Grey rivalry to the true king or Queen?
Obviously those 5 extra years could have seen Elizabeth married off to a Grey or protestant prince or a falling out with the Greys and the Grey heirs being unselected.
I honestly believe that Edward VI would have been remembered as one of England's bloodiest kings if he had lived. He never knew the "benevolent" King Henry VIII, his only model was the rotting old tyrant. Add to that the press of Protestants surrounding him, his problems with Catholic Mary, etc. and I personally believe he would have felt compelled to rid England of Catholicism, no matter the cost.
I believe quite simply that Edward was his Father's son in many ways!! :)
A video about the sadistic and opportunist Richard Rich would be interesting. I don't understand how this awful person manages to remain in favor under Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I.
his letter to Mary, 26:00 is PURE MENACE.
he was his father's son in evil
Another "what if" to consider if Edward VI had lived (that just occurred to me as I was reading others' comments) is about colonization. If he had pushed a Puritan agenda, and the church had been further reformed, would there have been a Separatist movement? Would the Scrooby group have ended up in Massachusetts? Would there have been a civil war? The dominoes fall. All the international dynamics in Europe would have been different, and the competition of England to carve out its own piece of the New World would have taken on a different character. There might not have been a USA or Canada. We would have been very different--if we had ever come into being!
Any religious zealot is a dangerous thing. In a position of power,doubly so
Eddie was a TEEN-AGER! He had his uncles pulling the strings to share his power. History can’t expect that he would have had the wisdom or experience of a man. He was manipulated to a large degree.
Dr Kat, you’re the cat’s meow!!❤❤
Definitely manipulated, at least at the beginning. From _Edward the Boy King_, I get the impression that from about age 14, he understood the manipulation and did what he could to exert _his_ will and show _his_ intellect. The opening scenes of _Lady Jane_ (1986 film) suggest that his uncles and advisors may have deliberately poisoned him (killed him slowly) and forced him to create/amend his "device for the succession" so they could put on the throne someone they could more easily manipulate (not necessarily Jane Grey, but - because a Queen's consort became, effectively, King - Guilford Dudley).
Loosing your parents your sister's fighting you devoid of any great affections. Locked up in a palace in order to protect you from viruses and plagues .yes I can imagine life not a bed of roses for the boy king.
I would imagine we can also look to his Father and his sisters as to what his character could have become. They all seem to be very strong willed and have a hot temper.
Edward is so easily forgotten in the discussion of Tudor era history that I’m glad I’m seeing your video and more popping up to talk about him. His reign is such an interesting period, and his personality and character is intriguing to me. I wish there was more exploration of Edward, it was nice while it lasted that the Becoming Elizabeth show finally gave Edward some chance to shine as his own person.