I have a lot of sympathy for Jane Grey, although some say she was not a total innocent in these matters, I believe she was a puppet doing the bidding of her parents and the Dudley family. Would Jane have been allowed to live if the Wyatt rebellion had not taken place, or would Mary have seen her as too big a threat regardless?

Lots of her comtemparies didn't think she was queen otherwise Mary would not have succeded in claiming the throne. Her claim was  dubious at best being pushed as much by Dudley as well as a few other courtiers who had a lot to lose if Mary came to the throne. The majority  later claimed to have disapproved of the Device.

The Leander de Lisle book is very good, it certainly shows Jane would not have been a puppet queen since her ideas regarding the fledgling Church of England were far more radicle than Edward's.

Yes, The Sisters who would be queen. Looks at all 3 sisters.

It is true that some are unsure whether to include Jane Grey Dudley in the list of “Official Monarchs”, the official website of British monarchy does list her as such and 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 as Edward 5th and 8th also were not crowned, but both are recognised as official Kings of England.

Bill1978 said:

Excellent, I can't wait for it to arrive. I read the reviewso n Amazon.co.uk about the book and had much laughter at some of the reviews. Many people bought it think it was a historical novel. Not sure why they thought that based upon the Amazon description.

I blame she-who-must-not-be-named for making anything historical into a blood-and-sex novel.

Anyanka said:

---

I blame she-who-must-not-be-named for making anything historical into a blood-and-sex novel.

I concur. She-who-shall-not-be-named started something and I don't like it….

Lady Jane Grey is an interesting figure. While I do feel empathy for her, I believe that she was a fanatical Protestant who believed God wanted her to be Queen. It was a miscalculation by those involved who forgot that people believed in Henry's Act of Succession. Mary was the rightful heir, even if she was a fanatical Catholic in an increasinly Protestant country.

I've always found myself to refer to Jane Grey as Lady and not Queen. I'm not sure why. I just don't see her as Queen and cannot force myself to refer to her as such. It's nothing against her. Then again, when I speak or write about H8, EI, Mary, or any monarch, I rarely use King or Queen. I guess I assume it's a given. Not great policy, I know.

Leanda de Lisle's book is excellent. One of the best. I enjoyed the book because she dealt with Lady Jane, but also she explored Katherine and Mary Grey too, and I knew little about these women.

I have Eric Ives book on Lady Jane and the crisis of 1553, but have yet to read it. Although based upon his Anne Boleyn bio, Ives is a consumate academic and historian. He is fair, succient, and you can gurantee he has checked and re-checked his sources.

Jane and Guliford were tried for treason (for usurping the throne) and found guilty along with Northumberland.  Mary was determined to be lenient with Jane.  However, Jane's father involved himself in Wyatt's rebellion sealing his fate as well as his daughter's.  Mary was troubled by the decision to execute Jane. Her councillors, advised her that as long as Jane lived there would always be a chance of a rebellion in her name. 

Part of the reason too, was that Jane was always going to keep her reform beliefs.  While in the Tower, Jane wrote a letter to Thomas Harding condeming him for going back to Catholicism and against the Catholic belief in transubstantiation.  Leanda de Lisle, in her book “The Sister's Who Would Be Queen,” writes that the revolt was now to put Elizabeth on the throne.  Carew told Suffolk that when Mary was deposed, he would lead the fallen Queen to the Tower and release Jane.

Elizabeth never had to suffer through a trial.  If there was even a tiny bit of proof that Elizabeth had been involved in any way with Wyatt, Renard and Gardner would have found it and Elizabeth would have suffered the same fate as her cousin.  These councillor's wanted her dead.  When nothing could be proven against Elizabeth, and Wyatt cleared her of involvement before his death, Mary had to release her.

Bella44 said:

Edwards 5th and 8th inherited the throne legally whereas Jane didn't.  She was widely seen as an usurper and never had the love of the people that Mary had.  If she had more people on her side things may have been different.  It didn't take more than a couple of defections by her councillors before they all went over to Mary, displaying how uneasy most felt about Jane being queen.  Had Edward lived even a few months longer maybe his devise for the succession would have passed through parliament and Jane could very well have been a legal queen.  But there was a way of doing these things and it had to have been done correctly. 

Another reason people felt Jane wasn't legally Edward's heir was due to Henry's will, which stipulated that Edward had to have completed his 18th year (i.e., on his 19th birthday) before he had the lawful authority to set aside his father's will. Even if Edward had somehow managed to ram his “devise for the succession” through Parliament, it likely wouldn't have been considered legal either, which would have led to unrest and uprisings from people not happy that Henry's will was being subverted.