Talk:Edward VI of England and Scotland

I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but something occurred to me recently--how folks were looking for analogs to Winston Churchill and others vis-a-vis GW2. But it seemed to me far more interesting if the personalities involved were actually far different. Hence my creation of Edward VI and his unpopular but brilliant minister. But if they interfere with something already planned--well, this is only a proposal, after all. Zahir 22:38, 7 Oct 2005 (PDT)

This was proposed in early October. Unless someone objects by year's end, I'm going to de-proposalize it. Zahir 13:02, 25 December 2005 (PST)

One minor issue - you said that Edward did not marry until 1949. I'm assuming Elizabeth was not born out of wedlock, which means 1950 would be the earliest she could've been born, which means Diana couldn't've been born before 1970 (and probably mid-70's at earliest), which means she was still only in her 20's when her mother abdicated. Why would her mother abdicate while still only middle-aged to such a young daughter? Nik 21:47, 26 December 2005 (PST)

An excellent point! I see two ways of resolving this:

(1) Edward wed before 1949, Elizabeth was born earlier, etc.

(2) Elizabeth is not Edward's daughter, but that of his brother who sadly pre-deceased Edward.

I prefer #2. What says anyone else? Zahir 21:58, 26 December 2005 (PST)

Hmm ... #2 is interesting. Or, another possibility is that Elizabeth abdicated for reasons of health. Perhaps she's suffering from a degenerative disease, or maybe some sort of mental illness. Alternately, she could've been involved in some sort of scandal, and forced to abdicate ... Nik 22:04, 26 December 2005 (PST)

I've changed the article to reflect Option Number Two--however, I've left Elizabeth's age up in the air. If you want to make a proposal in keeping with the idea of her abdicating in favor of a very young Diana, go for it. Zahir 22:15, 26 December 2005 (PST)

Is Edward the son or grandson of James V? If he is the son, that means both James and Edward must've been born fairly late in their father's lives. I'd suggest that James was born c. 1865 (Albert was born 1840, thus 25 years old), his first son in c. 1890 (~25 years old), and Edward would be the son of that prince (~23 y.o. at his birth). That prince would've died sometime prior to James' death. Nik 22:26, 26 December 2005 (PST)

Well, George V *here* was born in 1865, son of the future Edward VII. He was a younger son, Prince Albert Victor the Duke of Clarence expecting to wear the crown. But he died, and George succeeded his father. George's son and heir, Edward VIII (a fairly nasty chap, by all accounts) was born in 1894, his other children born in 1895 (George VI), 1897 (Princess Mary), 1900 (George, Duke of Gloucester), 1902 (George, Duke of Kent) and 1905 (Prince John).

But I rather like your idea better, with James V being Edward's grandson. Zahir 22:56, 26 December 2005 (PST)

This article is up for de-proposalizing. Anyone have any comments, questions, suggestions, corrections, etc.? Zahir 09:51, 30 January 2006 (PST)

Is it just me, or does he rather resemble David Suchet? --Kgaughan 18:01, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Heh heh heh... Zahir 18:35, 1 March 2006 (PST)