On this day in history, 13th November 1553, Lady Jane Grey, her husband Guildford Dudley, his brothers Ambrose and Henry, and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer were tried for treason at a public trial at London’s Guildhall. They were led from the Tower of London, through the streets on foot, in a procession led by a man carrying an axe turned away from the prisoners, to show that they had not yet been found guilty of a capital crime: treason.

The Chronicle of Queen Jane describes the procession, although some of the wording is missing:-

“Next followed the lorde Gilforde Dudley, between (blank)
Next followed the lady Jane, between (blank), and hir ij. gentyll-
women following hir.
Next followed the lorde Ambrose Dudley and the lorde Harry
The lady Jane was in a blacke gowne of cloth, tourned downe ;
the cappe lyned with fese velvett, and edget about with the same, in
a French hoode, all black, with a black byllyment, a black velvet
boke hanging before hir, and another boke in hir hande open,
holding hir (the entry breaks off).”1

Eric Ives writes of how the trial opened with a Catholic liturgy and that the commission chosen to try Jane and the men was headed by Sir Thomas White, the Lord Mayor, and also the Duke of Norfolk. He comments that the commission “was overwhelmingly Catholic in sentiment”2. Ives explains that Jane, Guildford, Ambrose, Henry and Cranmer were all charged with high treason, “the archbishop for entering the Tower on 10 July and proclaiming Jane, and also for sending troops to Cambridge; Jane and Guildford for taking possession of the Tower and proclaiming Jane while she faced the additional charge of ‘signing various writings’.”3

Cranmer, at first, pleaded ‘not guilty’, but after the case had been presented, and before the jury delivered their verdict, he changed his plea to ‘guilty’, like the others. They were all found guilty as charged, with the men being sentenced to being hanged, drawn and quartered, and Jane to be burned alive, or beheaded. Leanda de Lisle4 writes of how Michel Angelo Florio recorded that Jane remained cool and calm during the proceedings and it seems that she did not react at all to the sentence, perhaps her faith sustained her. Ives goes on to describe of how she used her months of imprisonment in the Tower studying the Bible and writing letters and prayers. In his chapter “The Tower”5, Ives goes into detail on the writings of Jane at that time and how “Jane revealed more about herself than ever before”. Her “intimacy with the scripture” was clear and also “her determination that her death should have meaning, and Ives believes that Jane saw her imprisonment and suffering as “a test of her election” by God:-

“Jane faced imprisonment in the Tower positively. The loss of liberty was irksome, but the more she could, by God’s grace, triumph over hardships, the more confident she could be of her eternal destiny.”6

Although Jane had been condemned to death, no date was given for the sentence to be carried out and it appeared that Mary would spare her. Things changed, however, in 1554 with Wyatt’s Rebellion. Although Jane was not personally involved in this uprising against the Queen and her proposed marriage to Philip of Spain, her father, the Duke of Suffolk, was. Leanda de Lisle writes of how “although the intention of the rebels was to have Elizabeth as their Queen, this was not clear at court. Jane and Guildford were potentially dangerous figureheads for the rebel cause. As they had already been found guilty of treason and condemned to die, it would also be a simple matter to allow those sentences to be carried out.”7 Ives writes of how it is unclear how it was decided that Jane should be executed and that the speed of events during and after the rebellion suggests that the decision to execute Jane and Guildford was a result of “panic”8. A 3 day reprieve was granted to give time for Benedictine John Feckenham to convert Jane to Catholicism but it didn’t work, Jane kept her faith and was executed on the 12th February 1554, just days after the rebellion.

Why did Mary I executed Lady Jane Grey? Well, Giovanni Francesco Commendone9 wrote of how Mary was actually on the verge of reprieving Jane “but judging that such an action might give rise to new riots, the Council ruled it out”. This view is also backed up by Michel Angelo Florio who believed that Mary’s decision was based on “‘papist’ warnings about security and urged on by Habsburg advice from Brussels.”10 John Knox blamed Catholic members of the Queen’s Council, men like Stephen Gardiner, for corrupting Mary and Ives writes of how Gardiner did “keep up the pressure for Jane’s death until the last”11, preaching a sermon at court on the day before she was due to be executed calling upon Mary not to be merciful to “rotten and hurtful members” who should be “cut off and consumed”. Ives concludes that “Mary was ultimtaely responsible for what was both a crime and folly, but the guilt may well lie elsewhere”, with those who were advising the Queen and putting pressure on her to act against Jane and Guildford. Leanda de Lisle agrees in part, saying that “The Privy Council, including those who had proclaimed Jane in the summer, joined together with the imperial ambassadors to press Mary into doing so [signing the execution warrants]” but that “it may not have been very difficult”12. Was Mary a puppet in the hands of her Council and the imperial ambassadors or was she making a statement that rebellion and challenge to her throne would be handled ruthlessly? It is hard to know. Whatever the truth of the matter, it must have been hard to sign the death warrant of a sixteen year old who was also her relation.

What happened to Guildford and the other men?

  • Guildford Dudley, husband of Lady Jane Grey, son of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland and brother of Robert, Ambrose and Henry, was beheaded before his wife on the 12th February 1554
  • Henry Grey, father of Lady Jane Grey, was beheaded on the 23rd February 1554
  • Ambrose Dudley was released in late 1554 and went on to serve Elizabeth I as her Master of Ordnance and a Privy Councillor. He died in 1590.
  • Henry Dudley was also released and was killed in battle, fighting for Philip II against the French
  • Robert Dudley, who had also been imprisoned in the Tower after Mary I seized the throne from Lady Jane Grey, was also released in Autumn 1554. He became a favourite of Elizabeth I and died of natural causes in 1588.
  • John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, was executed on 22nd August 1553 for his part in putting Lady Jane on the throne.
  • Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was tried for heresy in September 1555 and then burned at the stake in Oxford on the 21st March 1556.

Notes and Sources

  1. “The chronicle of Queen Jane, and of two years of Queen Mary, and especially of the rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyat written by a resident in the Tower of London”, edited, with illustrative documents and notes by John Gough Nichols (1850), p32
  2. “Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery”, Eric Ives, p252 of UK hardback
  3. Ibid.
  4. “The Sisters Who Would Be Queen”, Leanda de Lisle, p124, US hardback
  5. Ives, p248-260
  6. Ibid., p260
  7. De Lisle, p131
  8. Ives, p267
  9. Commendone, “Accession”, p44, quoted in Ives, p268
  10. Ives, p269
  11. Ibid.
  12. De Lisle, p133

Related Post

17 thoughts on “The Trial of Lady Jane Grey – 13th November 1553”
  1. Thank you for this post! One thing I have read, and never really gave much credence to, was that the Spanish ambassador at the time informed Mary that the marriage with Philip would NOT go ahead, so long as Jane lived, because the Spanish were concerned with His Majesty’s safety. If there was the possibility of a rebellion, using Jane as a (willing or unwilling) figurehead, then Philip would not come to England.

    A pity, that Jane had such greedy, ambitious relatives who had no qualms about using her for their own selfish ends, then abandoning her to the fate they themselves truly deserved. Something that could be said of Kathryn Howard, and even Anne Boleyn, too.

    1. I hadn’t read about what the Spanish ambassador reportedly said to Mary about her marriage to Philip not taking place as long as Jane lived but in light of Mary seeming being so in love with Philip, it makes sense that that could have been the “pressure” used to execute Jane.
      Mary seem to have been manipulated as badly as Jane or Kathryn Howard by those with their own personal agendas.
      Makes one appreciate what Elizabeth had to endure on a daily basis.

  2. After the Wyatt Rebellion, I seem to remember that Elizabeth joined her sister, Mary I, while riding beside her into London and as Elizbeth put it, “…prouldy…by those who would have stolen your crown.” So Elizabeth further, at that time, firmly belived in the Act of Succession. Mary has also been shown to having been subject to influence (except her firm stance in the Roman Catholic faith and persecution of those who would not conform), especially by Philip. I have read that Philip found Elizabeth suitable for marriage and even proposed after Mary’s death, and played a part in saving her life under “Bloody Mary.” I do love Anne and Elizabeth. Thank you, once again, Claire!!!!

    1. It is short for ibidem meaning “the same place” and is pretty much the same as saying ditto. In referencing it simply means “the same source as above”. E.g.
      The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, p306
      Ibid., p286
      The first ibid means “also in Ives but p286” and the second ibid means “in Ives on p286 as previous”.
      Hope that makes sense.

  3. I suppose you could compare the pressure put on Mary to execute Jane, to the pressure put on Elizabeth to execute Mary Queen of Scots…. tumultuous times

    1. absolutely terrible times to live in you were damned if you did and damned if you didnt the rich and noble had it as bad if not worse then the poor ,as much as i am obsessed with everything tudor im glad i did not live in those times

  4. Great ,Well I gess Mary had to do what Mary had to do,there was no way she was going too let anyone stand in her way of the Throne,as for Lady Jane and Dudley,they were so set up by the family,greed and used her for there own selfish wants /needs.What I no of Jane Grey and Dudley, is that they had no clue as too rule on the Throne,and too they never saw Mary comming,fast she was going too put an end to Jane and Dudley.I don’t think Mary would have spared her even if she did convert,Jane and Dudley were going down. Just my thouhgts. Regards Baroness x

  5. I think going for the throne was part of the family business for powerful noble families. As tragic as it seems, it may not have been that surprising for those that were part of that world.

  6. I tried to see whether Jane was beheaded or burned per the sentence, but found no reference. Only that she was “executed.” Do we know how she died?

  7. I love the painting in the British National Gallery of the beheading of lady Jane Grey and once had a cat named after her. A sad story, but please tell me they didn’t burn that poor girl.

  8. Mary started off with a desire to be merciful. She had no time to waste if she wished to provide a Catholic heir as she was already 37 at her accession. I doubt she would have risked any further delays to the marriage, which could not be expected to occur unless she had a demonstrably firm hold on the Crown. No threats needed from anyone. Simple fact of royal life and diplomacy.

    She initially spared her cousin, and had Suffolk not involved himself in a rebellion, Jane likely would have been left with her life, if not her freedom.

  9. Hi Claire! Lady Jane Grey is often referred to as ‘the Nine Days Queen.’ But I have also heard that she was queen for thirteen days. So how many days was she really queen for? Even if you don’t know for sure yourself, I would love to hear your reply.

    1. She has gone down in history as “The Nine Days Queen”, which is based on her being proclaimed queen on 10th July and being deposed on 19th July, but Edward VI chose her as his successor and monarchs rule from the moment the previous monarch died and he died on 6th July so really she ruled for 13 days.

  10. These days a trial of this magnitude would probably go on for weeks, months even with various teams of lawyers arguing back and forth on motions and evidence, the actual trial might take a few weeks, but everyone was tried at the same time, having also had to listen to a sermon, all day, without representatives as these were state show trials, the presumption was guilty not innocent, all in public and with a great deal of show and ceremony. It must have all been very dramatic as well as traumatic as a charge of treason rarely ended in pardons and life, but in a dire and fearsome death.

    Jane’s main problem was the documents she had signed as Queen, even though she showed reluctance at first, but she was right to be confident because Mary had indicated she saw Jane as a pawn. Mary was inclined to mercy because Jane received more freedom as time went by. However, this changed when her father backed Thomas Wyatt the Younger and Jane and Elizabeth once more became threats to her life and crown. Maybe her conversation to the Catholic Faith had it happened might have saved her because that made her useless as a puppet for Protestant rebellion. I say maybe because we can’t be entirely certain, but she was,promised this and Mary did tend to be more honourable in such matters. To brand Jane as a victim does her no favours either as it down plays her own heroic and determined character but her death was a great loss for her youth and potential alone. Unfortunately one can’t pick ones parents and her family made some pretty daft choices.

  11. When we read the evidence its clear that Mary took advice from her Council and the Ambassador as well as representatives from Spain but ultimately made her own mind up. There has never been any evidence that Mary was the pawn of her Council as Fox suggested. It wasn’t good form even for the biased Fox to blame a monarch for apparently poor decisions. It was always the evil councillors around them and it was a matter of opinion as to whether this was a poor decision. Most people supported the Queen and her marriage to Philip which had huge benefits for commerce abroad and here. The people backed Mary and her response to stop Wyatt and kept him out of London. Most people supported the aftermath for his treason and enjoyed his execution. We see Mary make her own choice to marry Philip and really that was her right. She agonised over the fate of Jane and her husband for months. She even resisted repeatedly the calls to get rid of Elizabeth who was an even bigger threat but who was ultimately her heir. Modern evidence has put to bed the nonsense over Mary being manipulated by her Council or making rash decisions or her short reign being a disaster. Its unfortunate that the brilliant book by Alexandra Sampson is so expensive as it clearly disproved every old fashioned notion on the treatment of Jane and her husband, the unpopularity of her marriage to Philip, the Wyatt Rebellion and much more. Jane was always going to be the first aim of Protestant uprisings as she was legitimate, Elizabeth second as a daughter of Henry Viii. Jane was condemned to death in November 1553 but not executed until February 1554. Why? That Jane and Guildford were not exactly locked up in the strictest of conditions and those conditions loosened should be a clue. Mary saw Jane as an innocent. She did everything to save her but it was the choice of a radical young woman with as strong a faith as herself which was the deciding factor. Mary even had a very good and well educated man speak with Jane. Father Feckenham was not a bully. He used reason and debate to try to persuade Jane to convert. As a Catholic Jane would be useless to radical Protestant rebels. As a Catholic Mary could use Jane as a propaganda coup and perhaps name her as her heir. Jane could be used to keep others in line. Mary could justify the pardon of a condemned traitor and rival, something unheard off when people claimed your crown. Mary had many discussions with her advisors over a long period of time. Ultimately the second rising highlighted the danger of keeping a rival locked up. The Wyatt Rebellion wasn’t obviously in favour of Elizabeth and would have used Jane if possible. It was a xenophobic rebellion not a religious one. The Government chose to portrsy it as religious but many others promoted it as anti Spanish. We actually have sources from ordinary people saying what their fears are and they sound absolutely paranoid but genuinely insightful. Ives quotes a number of factors and a number of people who spoke to Mary on the danger of not executing Jane. The later Plantagenet Kings made the mistake of leaving rivals alive and Henry vi was released and restored. Edward iv is the only deposed Monarch to be forced from his throne and successfully return as King. The second time he had the hapless King Henry killed. He had to fight two battles in order to win but he is unique. Mary had fought to gain her throne, she would be weak to risk another potential deposition. In the end I don’t believe Mary was left with much choice although she wasn’t a pawn. It wasn’t a good or bad choice, it was a horrible and necessary one. Henry Tudor in theend had to execute Warwick because of the Perkin Warbeck situation. This also was a terrible choice but remember the Tudor regime was one of usurpers, who won on the battlefield and who were running out of heirs. They imagined themselves as not being secure, even if in reality they were. If they were not Welsh I would even have said that they had all the luck of the Irish. Mary made a decisive choice to preserve herself and her realm which grew much more stable and had many benefits under her and Philip. Her trade settlement with Russia is evidence of that as was her reorganisation of the naval finances. She may be condemned in some quarters for her religious persecution but her general reformation and settlement was widely accepted. It was also highly successful and only reversed by a regime change. It was not unusual either, although it was unprecedented in the number of people executed for hersey. However, if we condemn Mary then Henry and Elizabeth must also be condemned, the former even more so. Mary also showed restraint in the disposal of traitors, the pardoning of a large number of rebels, the handling of her half sister, implicated as wanting to kill her, even though it wasn’t proven, the way she did hesitate over Jane and yet she was condemned for both her not rushing to justice and the final decision to execute Jane, who was justly tried and condemned by the standards of the day. Henry Viii hesitated over three treason trials before signing but he wasn’t condemned either way. He was then condemned later when he lost the ability to think about the fate of those condemned by trial and their peers. Being in charge was a lonely task, you were ultimately responsible for the life and death of those under you and if they broke the oath or were used by others to keep you from the crown, the law said they were guilty of treason. Treason had only one sentence: death. You, the monarch were now responsible for accepting or rejecting the verdict and could pardon or confirm the sentence. Mary was now facing the awful choice and in the end she realised that she could not do otherwise. It wasn’t wise or safe to keep Jane alive and her family sealed her fate. Horrible, tragic, a waste of a young snd talented life as it was, Mary took the decision her father would have taken and her sister would take and carried out the sentence of death on her young cousin. However, she did at least commute the sentence from burning to beheading and for Guildford as well. She also pardoned some of those condemned in this trial, Ambrose Dudley for one.

    Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was a different story and he had continued to write against Mary and her lawful succession, her lawful religious settlement and her as well. His leaflets were forbidden and he still did it. He could have been executed but he was sent for trials as a heretic instead. There is much debate as to whether his ultimate fate was personal and revenge for the wrong doing against Mary and her mother. There is no contemporary evidence which gives us a personal insight but unconsciously it is possible. The regime actually took a long time over Cranmer and he went through a number of debates, his case was heard in Rome, he was granted a public defence and in the end he could have lived. The controversial thing was his final decision to recant and the fact that he was condemned anyway by Mary. The reason was that several other times he did so but he had altered the paper so his recantation was not genuine. He now made a number of completed submissions but I suspect the Government didn’t believe him. In a brave and spectacular reversal of his behaviour over three years backwards and forwards, Thomas Cranmer made a public declaration of his reformed faith and he was taken to the flames where he again declared his faith. This has to be laid at the door of Queen Mary, but also he was guilty under the law and it was his choice. Yhat was the tragedy of the times. Now the Queen or the King was the embodiment of what one should believe. It was the same with Thomas More who could not accept Henry as Head of the Church or Edmund Campion who would stand before Elizabeth and her Council and out debate them. The times were terrible and cruel, the decision was cruel. The reality was terrible and horrendous. Thankfully we don’t live in such a way now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *