Interesting question.  Without a doubt, Elizabeth's reign would have been completely different had she been Jane's daughter.  She might not have reigned at all.  Elizabeth was cast as the anti-Bloody Mary by her supporters; the moderate Protestant to Mary's overzealous Catholic.  Had she been Jane's daughter, I'd have to assume she'd have Catholic sympathies and thus may have been seen as being on the same side as Mary.  Edward was the golden child, meant to be king, but the sisters had horrible childhoods that absolutely influenced their later reigns.  If we are still following the Catherine, Anne, Jane chronology but changing the children's chronology to Mary, Edward, Elizabeth, Elizabeth wouldn't have entered the picture at all unless Edward still died young and childless.  I have to admit though that I think Jane was wan and bland and in ill health and so was her child, whereas Anne was vibrant and sparkling and her child was too.  If Edward had been Anne's son, he may have reigned for a long time.  Perhaps everything would play out exactly the same, only instead of a golden Elizabethan age it would have been a golden Edwardian age.  England may have remained Catholic.  Or, conversely, had Anne died giving birth to the longed-for heir, she would have been so cemented in Henry's mind as his \”true wife\” and all that bullshit he said about Jane that he would have been pushed more strongly toward Reform.  Jane was coached before her seduction of Henry by Nicolas Carewe and the Catholic pro-Mary faction at court.  If there was a son and heir, the \”pro-Mary\” part wouldn't have had much traction.  Perhaps they would have coached her to be more Protestant.

Regarding the rest of the question, Anne is without a doubt remembered for being beheaded.  Jane, the supposed \”true wife\” of the king; the one who gave him his heart's desire and is buried with him, is not remembered today.  Google \”Jane Seymour\” and the first eight results are for the actress.  As unpleasant as Anne's execution was, it earned her a spot in the history books.  As Laurel Thatcher Ulrich said, well behaved women rarely make history.  Jane was just one of those women who did everything she was supposed to but wasn't remembered.  She probably would have wanted it that way too.  Her motto was \”Bound to Obey and Serve.\”  Anne made history, and her story had the perfect \”bad girl\” ending.  However, I think she was memorable enough to have made history on her own, especially for her effect on the Reformation.  It all comes down to who is writing the history.  During Mary's reign, Anne's memory was tarnished and she was vilified as the ultimate heretic and witch.  During Elizabeth's reign, she was remembered as a saint.  Being human, she must have been a little of both.  Had she given birth to Edward, there would have been no reign of Mary to tarnish her image and thus would have been remembered well.

Edward grew up in a sterile environment, and his body could not possibly learn to fight off infections. Dying from TB must be horrible. He did grow up to be healthy, until he contracted TB.

I think Elizabeth would not have been the queen she was had Jane been her mother. She had the best of both of her parents, although she could brow beat and curse like them as well. Jane was meek, and did not have a voice of her own like Anne. She would've been a puppet queen, and the Seymours would have ruled behind her. The consequences of that would've been awful, and the monarchy would have suffered greatly..

I meant sterile according to their standards, not ours..

I'm sure I read somewhere about Edward's rooms being washed down daily with soap and water or something of that nature. Not sure whether that was prior to his illness or just all the time. Might be wrong on this – but perhaps that is where the idea of him being kept in 'sterile' conditions' comes from?

Rochie said:

I'm sure I read somewhere about Edward's rooms being washed down daily with soap and water or something of that nature. Not sure whether that was prior to his illness or just all the time. Might be wrong on this – but perhaps that is where the idea of him being kept in 'sterile' conditions' comes from?

Yes, from the moment of his birth. He only became ill when he was in his mid-teens (about 13-14-ish). He was perfectly healthy before then.

@hannah.. It's all good..