Lady Jane Grey - Queen Jane | Historical Debates | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Lady Jane Grey - Queen Jane
October 23, 2012
5:23 pm
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 959
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The more I read about Lady Jane Grey and Edward VI’s “devise for the succession” the more I feel that Jane was actually the real queen and that Mary was the usurper. Edward VI quite clearly stated that his successor was to be Jane and she was a legitimate Tudor as the legitimate granddaughter of Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII. Mary and Elizabeth may have been put back into the succession by Henry VIII but they were still illegitimate, by Act of Parliament, and surely Edward’s wishes as monarch were what mattered and I don’t believe that he was coerced by those around him, I think he was old enough to make his own decisions.

I also believe that Jane should be known as Queen Jane. She was proclaimed queen and although her reign was very short it did exist.

Your thoughts?

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

October 23, 2012
6:12 pm
Avatar
Neil Kemp
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 447
Member Since:
April 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The official website of British Monarchy does list Jane as Queen. More importantly the National Archives at Kew, which is the repository of all official government records, maintains a section for the reign of Queen Jane. So the British government does recognise her as an official Queen, even if her reign was brief. But because it was brief, many overlook her.
She does not feature on the wall of Monarchs at the tower, but the fact that she was not crowned has no bearing. Both Edward 5th and Edward 8th were also not crowned, but both are recognised as official Monarchs of England and I believe that Jane should also be regarded as such.

October 23, 2012
8:57 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don’t believe Edward was coerced into naming Jane as his heir. As a monarch, Edward believed he had the right to choose his successor.
He truly believed England would be better off with Jane as queen, rather than one of his sisters. Especially Mary, I think.
Mary and Edward were at loggerheads throughout his reign. They were constantly fighting over their religious beliefs. He was quite capable of seeing where she would take the country if she were allowed to reign; and as much as he loved Elizabeth, he considered her, and Mary, to be illegitimate.
The thought has crossed my mind that Mary usurped the throne, but I’m not sure if what Edward did was totally legal. I know he had the Letters Patent signed and agreed to by the judges which (I think) meant they agreed that his Will was binding, but Henry’s Act of Parliament was still in effect. Edward did not have time to go through Parliament and he thought his Will was enough. He died thinking Jane was his legal heir.

October 24, 2012
1:17 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If the “deuise” was legal, then Jane was queen and Mary a popular usurper, since most of the country was behind her. Mary took the crown by force of arms like her grandfather Henry VII did.

If the ‘deuise” wasn’t legal since Edward had not reached the age of majority, then Edward couldn’t over-ride his father’s will….and Mary was queen with popular support from the country.

Either way, Mary was in a position to become queen and Jane seen as either a relative unknown or a light-weight player under the control of her husband and his family.

It’s a hard call to make….personally, I think Jane wasn’t the queen simply because Edward didn’t have the legal authority to over-turn his father’s will and the previous Acts of Settlement. Had Edward been older, then I would have to accept Jane as being the queen.

Ives certainly makes a compelling case for Jane being queen however it donsn’t totally convince me.

It's always bunnies.

October 24, 2012
2:33 am
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The offspring of Henry VIIIs older sister Margaret should, by rights, have taken precedence over the children of his younger sister Mary, although he chose to overlook them and left them out of his will altogether as that would have meant handing the English throne to the Scots. If you regard Henry’s decision to do that as valid, then I think Jane was Edward’s heir by choice and should be acknowledged as Queen. She was never going to be able to make it stick though as the people were behind Mary.

As an aside, I feel the execution of Queen Jane was one of the most heinous things Mary did in her reign. Poor Jane was little more than a child and only claimed the crown because she was coerced into it.

October 24, 2012
7:36 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It could be argued, that if the line of succession, was followed as Henry had decreed it in 1544, that Catherine Grey’s son by Edward Seymour should have succeeded to the throne in 1603, and because his aunt Jane had been Queen albeit for just 9 days, he had the right to the throne.
Would things have been different it that had been the case? Possibly although I have been doing a little bit of digging and it appears, that Edward Seymour (Catherine’s son) is a descentdant of our Queen, through her mother Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. So it some ways although Eddy Junior was declared a bastard by Elizabeth 1st and the Grey sisters and their heirs were removed from inheriting the throne, because of their behaviour or whatever, they have had the last laugh as Mary Tudor (Henry’s sister) descendants DID inherit the throne after all..

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 24, 2012
12:44 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gill said

The offspring of Henry VIIIs older sister Margaret should, by rights, have taken precedence over the children of his younger sister Mary, although he chose to overlook them and left them out of his will altogether as that would have meant handing the English throne to the Scots. If you regard Henry’s decision to do that as valid, then I think Jane was Edward’s heir by choice and should be acknowledged as Queen. She was never going to be able to make it stick though as the people were behind Mary.

As an aside, I feel the execution of Queen Jane was one of the most heinous things Mary did in her reign. Poor Jane was little more than a child and only claimed the crown because she was coerced into it.

There was a law passed in England in 1403(?) disallowing people not born in England from inheriting lands and titles, which was one reason why Mary QoS wasn’t part of Henry’s list of possible heirs.

The other, of course, was that Henry was expecting Mary to have married Edward and unite the crowns that way.

While I agree that Jane was much more sinned against than sinning, she took charge of her realm with an awful lot of passion and was very involved in the day to day details of running England during her reign. She certainly wasn’t the passive member of her cabinet that is frequently shown.

It's always bunnies.

October 24, 2012
12:56 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

It could be argued, that if the line of succession, was followed as Henry had decreed it in 1544, that Catherine Grey’s son by Edward Seymour should have succeeded to the throne in 1603, and because his aunt Jane had been Queen albeit for just 9 days, he had the right to the throne.
Would things have been different it that had been the case? Possibly although I have been doing a little bit of digging and it appears, that Edward Seymour (Catherine’s son) is a descentdant of our Queen, through her mother Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. So it some ways although Eddy Junior was declared a bastard by Elizabeth 1st and the Grey sisters and their heirs were removed from inheriting the throne, because of their behaviour or whatever, they have had the last laugh as Mary Tudor (Henry’s sister) descendants DID inherit the throne after all..

He could have succeeded but was considered illegitimate for most of his life and AFAIK there was no provision in either Hennry’s will, the Act of Succession or Edward’s ‘deuise’ for another illegitmate heir* to take the throne.

The late queen dowager certainly had an intereasting set of blood-lines to pass on to her daughter, with descents from both Catherine Carey and Catherine Grey.

* While both Mary and Elizabeth were considered illegitimante, their succession was enshrined in law by the Act of Succession.

It's always bunnies.

October 24, 2012
1:09 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Intereastingly, the succession of James was complicated by the presence of Anne Stanley who was also a descendent of Mary Tudor and Charles Brandon though thier younger daughter, Eleanor being her great-grandmother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..astlehaven

eta http://cupboardworld.blogspot……ptive.html

eta 2 http://boards.straightdope.com…..95512.html

It's always bunnies.

October 24, 2012
3:06 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Boleyn said

It could be argued, that if the line of succession, was followed as Henry had decreed it in 1544, that Catherine Grey’s son by Edward Seymour should have succeeded to the throne in 1603, and because his aunt Jane had been Queen albeit for just 9 days, he had the right to the throne.
Would things have been different it that had been the case? Possibly although I have been doing a little bit of digging and it appears, that Edward Seymour (Catherine’s son) is a descentdant of our Queen, through her mother Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. So it some ways although Eddy Junior was declared a bastard by Elizabeth 1st and the Grey sisters and their heirs were removed from inheriting the throne, because of their behaviour or whatever, they have had the last laugh as Mary Tudor (Henry’s sister) descendants DID inherit the throne after all..

He could have succeeded but was considered illegitimate for most of his life and AFAIK there was no provision in either Hennry’s will, the Act of Succession or Edward’s ‘deuise’ for another illegitmate heir* to take the throne.

The late queen dowager certainly had an intereasting set of blood-lines to pass on to her daughter, with descents from both Catherine Carey and Catherine Grey.

* While both Mary and Elizabeth were considered illegitimante, their succession was enshrined in law by the Act of Succession.

But then Eddy’s illgitimancy could have been taken care of in much the same way as Mary and Lizzy’s had been. It would have only taken an act of Parliament to say Eddy could inherit the throne. The only problem as far as I can see it is that there were no witnesses to say that Catherine Grey and Ed Seymour’s marriage did actually happen. The only witness apart from the cleric who performed the marriage was Jane Seymour, who died shortly afterwards as did the Cleric. I find it strange that although Eddy was declared a bastard he did inherit his father’s title of Lord Beauchamp, and all the lands that went with the title including Berry Pomeroy which is I believe the Seymours family country seat. Eddy also made a good marriage too. In time the titles of the Earl of Hertford and Duke of Somerset were also restored to his sons..
Not bad going for a bastard…

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 24, 2012
7:20 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Ha! And just who was going to approve that Act of Parliament?
There was no marriage certificate either for Catherine and Edward, and Elizabeth took full advantage of this. I don’t know Boleyn, but I think once Edward Jr was born illegitimate, it was easy for Elizabeth to cross his mother and the rest of the family off the list of would be heirs. I don’t think it was ever her intention that the Grey’s should succeed her. If she went against her father’s wishes as far as the heirs were concerned, so be it.

I don’t see a comparison between Ed Jr and Elizabeth and Mary. As Anyanka said the Act of Succession stated clearly that they should follow his son, Edward. In my mind neither Elizabeth or Mary were illegitimate. Henry was married to both their mothers. Now I know that is a debatable topic, but that is how I see it. When they were born, he claimed them as his legal children. When they became an inconvenience to him, he called them illegitimate. Henry! Yell His only saving grace as far as I am concerned was his Act of Succession.

October 24, 2012
8:41 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

In Mary’s case, even though her parent’s marriage was annulled, both Henry and Katherine had entered into it in good faith believing it to be lawful.

That meant in canon law, Mary was legitimate. She was made illegitimate because she wouldn’t sign the documents saying her parent’s marriage was illegal. Making her illegitimate was Henry’s revenge on both his wife and daughter.

eta n’t…she wouldn’t sign

It's always bunnies.

October 24, 2012
9:03 pm
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I will always consider Jane, a Queen of England. I often wonder if Nothumberland wasn’t in the picture if the publich would have reacted differently? I always get the impression that the support for Mary was two fold – love for her and dislike for Northumberland.

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t one of Edward’s thinking when he was creating his will was that he pretty much didn’t want Catholic Mary to inherit his Protestant throne so kept her illegitimate and because he did that he was pretty much forced to keep Protestant Elizabeth illegitimate as he couldn’t justify legitimising one sister over the other.

October 24, 2012
9:37 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill1978 said

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t one of Edward’s thinking when he was creating his will was that he pretty much didn’t want Catholic Mary to inherit his Protestant throne so kept her illegitimate and because he did that he was pretty much forced to keep Protestant Elizabeth illegitimate as he couldn’t justify legitimising one sister over the other.

That was my understanding too, Bill.

October 25, 2012
2:09 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louise said

Bill1978 said

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t one of Edward’s thinking when he was creating his will was that he pretty much didn’t want Catholic Mary to inherit his Protestant throne so kept her illegitimate and because he did that he was pretty much forced to keep Protestant Elizabeth illegitimate as he couldn’t justify legitimising one sister over the other.

That was my understanding too, Bill.

Mine too. It was to keep up the Reformation revolution and stop the country returning to Papacy which fueled Edward’s decision to disinherit his half-sisters.

Sadly, he under-estimated the affection that both of his sisters were held in the populace and their sence of fair play rather than his council’s advice.

It's always bunnies.

October 25, 2012
4:34 am
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I imagine if Mary was the younger one of the 2 sisters, Edward would have been quite happy to keep the succession of his father and name his protestant sister as his heir. But as we know that’s not what occurred. And so Edward did what he thought was the only possible way to keep the Reformation train chugging along nicely. Scrap his sisters (including the Protestant one), and promote the relative that best matches with his father’s plan. Just a shame this meant in the end that an innocent traitor paid with their life. Maybe that’s why I like to view Jane as an official Queen, cause in her eyes she was, yes she accepted it reluctantly but she was queen for that fortnight. What Mary did to Jane really is no different to all those other Monarchs who got the role through ‘usurption’ and we don’t eliminate them from the history books or refer to Lord Richard or Lord Henry.

On a slight tangent with this question. I know supposedly Guildford asked to be King and when told no had a hissy hit and ran crying to mama, but let’s assume Jane did last as Queen and ruled for many years. Would Guidford eventually be known in history as Prince Guildford or would he remain Lord? Is Prince a title that you can only be born into as oppose to marrying into.

October 25, 2012
1:14 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

In Mary’s case, even though her parent’s marriage was annulled, both Henry and Katherine had entered into it in good faith believing it to be lawful.

That meant in canon law, Mary was legitimate. She was made illegitimate because she wouldn’t sign the documents saying her parent’s marriage was illegal. Making her illegitimate was Henry’s revenge on both his wife and daughter.

eta n’t…she wouldn’t sign

The thing is Mary did sign the document after the Spanish Ambassador explained to her that if she signed it the Pope would pardon her for signing it as it was done under duress. Mary also signed it to save her life an d those of her servents. Up until that point she didn’t believe her father would have proceeded against her and perhaps had her beheaded.
As for the succession in 1603, having thought about it, I feel that even if Lizzy had wanted Eddy to succeed to her throne, she knew that it would cause no end of hassle. I think what I’m trying to say (in my usual blundering stupididy) she put right the wrong her father will dictated. Her father stated that if she died the throne would go to the Grey clan, but Lizzy knew that was wrong and re instated Margaret heirs as inheritors. I also wonder if it was just possible it was Lizzy’s way of saying sorry for executing Mary QOS.
I feel Jane should be mentioned as Queen as she was declared as such by the Lords, but at the end of the day the people had the last say.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 25, 2012
6:18 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I read it wrong. Sorry. I hate when that happens. Confused
I was looking in Porter’s biography of Mary and I thought it said he did not want either sister on the throne because he thought them to be illegitimate. His decision to leave both of them ‘as is’ was mainly due to the fact that he didn’t want Mary as queen and couldn’t legitimize Elizabeth without legitimizing Mary.

October 26, 2012
12:18 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill1978 said

On a slight tangent with this question. I know supposedly Guildford asked to be King and when told no had a hissy hit and ran crying to mama, but let’s assume Jane did last as Queen and ruled for many years. Would Guidford eventually be known in history as Prince Guildford or would he remain Lord? Is Prince a title that you can only be born into as oppose to marrying into.

Given that a monarch could grant his/her spouse the crown matrional*, then I can’t see a problem with a male spouse being given the title of prince either legallyy or just as a courtesey title could be well within the realms of possiblilty.

I think Jane had offered to enoble Guilford as a duke ratyher than a prince though.

* Both Mary and Mary QoS granted thier respective husbands the title of King.

It's always bunnies.

October 26, 2012
12:43 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

Anyanka said

In Mary’s case, even though her parent’s marriage was annulled, both Henry and Katherine had entered into it in good faith believing it to be lawful.

That meant in canon law, Mary was legitimate. She was made illegitimate because she wouldn’t sign the documents saying her parent’s marriage was illegal. Making her illegitimate was Henry’s revenge on both his wife and daughter.

eta n’t…she wouldn’t sign

The thing is Mary did sign the document after the Spanish Ambassador explained to her that if she signed it the Pope would pardon her for signing it as it was done under duress. Mary also signed it to save her life an d those of her servents. Up until that point she didn’t believe her father would have proceeded against her and perhaps had her beheaded.

True, but I keep thinking that people are mind-readers…I meant Mary didn’t sign the papers in 1533, when the annulment was going through the English eccilastical system. That was the last straw for Henry’s limited patience. Had she signed then, Henry would have been a lot easier on her future but her sense of morality was of a far more convential setting than that of a mere courtier.

As for the succession in 1603, having thought about it, I feel that even if Lizzy had wanted Eddy to succeed to her throne, she knew that it would cause no end of hassle. I think what I’m trying to say (in my usual blundering stupididy) she put right the wrong her father will dictated. Her father stated that if she died the throne would go to the Grey clan, but Lizzy knew that was wrong and re instated Margaret heirs as inheritors. I also wonder if it was just possible it was Lizzy’s way of saying sorry for executing Mary QOS.

Oh definately…you can’t say some-one is illigetimate for 40-ish years and then give them the highest of honours. Elizabeth saw how that had affected her and parts of her reign. The crown to James as a peace-offering or just that he was the most able of for relatives???

I’d go for James showing he was the most able since you had an obscure woman or some-one under the stigma of illegimatacy. Had Edward actually done anything notable in his life to further his claim as king?

I can find no details of any military career or any major politial doings to prove he was a worthy claimant other than his blood-line.

I feel Jane should be mentioned as Queen as she was declared as such by the Lords, but at the end of the day the people had the last say.

Jane should be honoured in the same way as Edwards V and VIII.

It's always bunnies.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427592

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1712

Posts: 23076

Newest Members:

DennisDorie, vitushatault, oghmaniusVom, Urocchxae, Puimignog, Emma3456

Administrators: Claire: 959