Talk:Lady Jane Grey

"House of ..."

I just noticed that the lovely table at the bottom of the article stated that Jane was a member of the "House of Dorset." This was not accurate. The name of the "House" usually corresponds to the family's last name, not its title of nobility. Henry VII founded the "House of Tudor," not the "House of Richmond" (he was claimant through his father to the title Earl of Richmond before becoming king). The current queen is of the House of Windsor because her family's surname was changed during World War I to Windsor. Thus her male relatives not in the direct line of succession today are all surnamed Windsor. Queen Jane Grey Dudley was the daughter of Henry Grey, not Henry "Dorset" or (after 1551) "Suffolk." And her own maiden last name was "Grey," not "Dorset" or "suffolk." Her "House" was thus the "House of Grey," not the "House of Dorset." Or perhaps more correctly the House of Dudley, if the surname of the husband becomes the wife's surname after marriage? Afterall, the reason for changing the surname of the current British Royal House in 1917 was that it was presumed (the College of Heralds was unsure) to be either the German name Wettin or Saxe-Coburg, after Victoria's husband Albert of the German duchal House of Wettin of Saxe-Coburg. And Queen Elizabeth II felt it necessary, in light of Western marriage/name customs, to issue in April 1952 Letters Patent declaring that her descendants would bear as their surname her own English maiden name Windsor, rather than her presumed married surname of Mountbatten, the Anglicized surname adopted in 1947 by the Queen's husband, Prince Philip. PhD Historian 13:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you don't continue to say that in 1960 The Queen declared that her descendants would have the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor. Use has been inconsistent but Princess Anne was the first to use it in sigining the register at her first wedding. See the Royal Family's website for verification.What she had declared was that the Royal Family's name in general would remain Windsor. Not because (I venture) it was her maiden name but because it was the name of the Royal House. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

But even that is a new practice. In earlier generations, a queen regnant signaled also a change of dynasty, since her children would have her husband's surname. For instance, Queen Victoria was the last monarch of the House of Hanover. Her son and successor Edward VII was the first monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha simply because that was Prince Albert's house. (It was Saxe-Coburg and Gotha that was changed to Windsor by George V.) Prince Charles, having been born Charles Mountbatten in any event as he arrived before his mother's accession, would under the old rules been the first king of the House of Mountbatten. (He presumably would NOT have reverted to the name of Prince Philip's house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluksburg.) But now, short of some serious dynastic rearrangement, it's Windsor for the foreseeable future. As is only suitable now that male preference has been done away with, but the house was permanently named Windsor well before that change.

Relevant to the article, this suggests that had Lady Jane maintained her hold on the throne, she would have founded a House of Grey. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archived

Talk page archived; link to archive provided under the infoboxes. PeterSymonds 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Just for fun, I would like to point out that Lady Jane Grey's date of birth is no longer thought to be in October of 1537, or even in the year 1537. An article was published in the Oxford University Press journal Notes and Queries (Volume 54, number 3, Sept 2007) in which evidence was presented indicating that she must have been born prior to June of 1537. A second article is forthcoming from the same publisher in which it is established that Jane was actually born in late 1536, fully one year earlier than commonly assumed. Let the Wiki debate begin! PhD Historian (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this could be treated the same as the Anne Boleyn date debate. Therefore, if the information is fully sourceable (and/or enough info/sourceable argument can be written about the two dates of birth), then another section or subsection could be added to the article about the DofB debate. PeterSymonds | talk 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are, I suppose, similarities to the Ives/Warnicke/et al debate over the date of birth of Anne Boleyn. But there are also some critical differences. In the Boleyn case, as I recall, even Anne's contemporaries were uncertain of her age and date of her birth. In the case of Jane Grey, her contemporaries are in agreement that she was born long before the October 1537 date that tradition assigns to her. In fact, the October date of birth was not even assigned until the nineteenth century, fully 400 years after the event. And yes, the information is fully sourceable. Both Notes and Queries articles are fully footnoted with citations to sources in the 1550s created by individuals personally associated with Jane, namely her tutors. One point is left out of the articles, however: Jane's father, Henry Grey, was in Norfolk with his father-in-law, Charles Brandon, on a military expedition to put down the Pilgrimage of Grace throughout the period between October 1536 and February 1537. If Jane had indeed been born in early October, she must necessarily have been conceived in the middle two weeks of January 1537, seemingly impossible if Henry were away from Frances until February while putting down a rebellion. PhD Historian (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see more clearly now. I was just using the Anne Boleyn debate as an example of the bad record-keeping regarding birthdates during that period of time. I think it's definately worth mentioning the date possibilities in the article–currently it states that Jane was born on an unknown date in 1537, which can be made more interesting with arguments about her actual date of birth, whether 1536 of 1537. Your insight into the movements of Henry Grey and Charles Brandon at this crucial period is also very interesting, and can be backed up by a source. The conflicting information probably won't provide us with a definate date (yet, anyway), but it will add flavour to the article. PeterSymonds | talk 20:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As you note, church-based record-keeping regarding births, baptisms, marriages and deaths in the first half of the sixteenth century bore no resemblance to the thoroughness of modern governmental bureaus of vital statistics. In fact, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, deplored the general lack of record-keeping and in 1538 issued an episcopal directive instructing all parish officials to begin keeping such records. Many of those records were later destroyed during the religiously-based conflicts of the Civil Wars of the mid seventeenth century, complicating our lack of documentary birth data prior to 1660. As a result, it is very unlikely that Jane Grey's precise date of birth will ever be known. PhD Historian (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to make this article factually correct and consistent with the latest research findings on the topic, I have taken the liberty of amending references to LJG's date of birth to show that she was certainly born much earlier than the date traditionally believed. I again refer readers to the recent article in Oxford University's Notes and Queries, cited above. That article can be read in full at On the Date of Birth of Lady Jane Grey Dudley. There is an additional article pending with the same journal, due in June 2008, that firmly establishes Jane's date of birth as after October 1536 but before February 1537. The myth that she was born in October 1537 is entirely an invention of nineteenth-century panegyrists, though I do understand that many in the general public prefer to cling to myths rather than reality. PhD Historian (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am open to persuasion, but at present it seems in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy to cover all possibilities about her date of birth. It would help if we did not have a broken link to the article mentioned. To come down firmly on one side of this divide you would have to show that there is a scholarly consensus in favour of the earlier date, not just one article. PatGallacher (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I agree that we should cover all possibilities. But scholarly consensus does not always reign in cases like this. New original scholarship may outdate existing consensus at a stroke. Dates of birth and death are often tricky to nail, and since most scholars are not interested in that sort of detail (check their notes and you see that they often cite birth dates to earlier scholars without question), errors can sometimes be copied ad infinitum, giving the impression of consensus. While this is understandable, often new books deplorably give wrong dates even when the scholarship has moved on. On the other hand, as with John Knox, new, apparently definitive research, may later be modified under scrutiny. On the birth, this article seems to have the balance right at the moment, though it is a dreadful article in many other ways. qp10qp (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary and erroneous trivia

I'm not really sure what all the recent insertions of "titles" and "partileneal descent" and family trees contributes to this article. They make nice bits of trivia, and someone probably put a lot of work into them, but are they really necessary? Do they contribute anything substantive to an understanding of Lady Jane Grey? Or are they instead simply "padding"? If they are necessary, can someone at least edit them so that they are correct? (I do not have the necessary Wiki skills or I would do it myself.) Since when was Mary Tudor the daughter of Thomas Aylesbury and Anne Denman, as the genealogical table currently shows? Even Jane's "title" as queen is incorrect (the "title" currently displayed is more nearly a formula for verbal address ... for her actual "title," see the first words of her proclamation of accession, http://www.somegreymatter.com/janegreyproclamation.htm). PhD Historian (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that since her claim to the throne was based on her ancestry, it's important to include it. But it's also rather important that it be correct! (I believe it is correct now, but wonder how it got so screwed up in the first place....) Her patrilineal line is (much as it is in most articles I've seen similar items inserted into) pretty much irrelevant... It's not her "Grey" descent that's pertinent. Further, the patrilineal descent given is wrong, or at least questionable, around generation 10. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede including the genealogical tree as a graphic guidepost for those who might have difficulty understanding a prose explanation of her claim, but wouldn't the whole be more concise and less "messy" if it showed only the bloodline through which royalty was traced? Does the large paternal branch of the tree tell us anything about her claim to the throne? The same goes for the patrilineage that someone put so much effort into. Do we really learn anything about Jane Grey by knowing who her grandfather was ten or fifteen generations prior? Especially if it is incorrect (I've not checked her "patrilineage" myself beyond five generations ... that's enough, in my opinion)! Also, whoever created that section is simply wrong about the whole issue of "royal house." Full "Membership" (are there dues?) that includes inheritance rights in a "royal house" is determined by patrilineal descent only in countries where Salic inheritance law applies. Under Salic law, if one cannot inherit, one is not a full "member of the club," so to speak, and women cannot serve as intermediaries in the tranmission of a noble title from grandfather to grandson via the daughter-mother. Thus "patriline" - an unbroken male line. In England, Salic law does not apply. Jane's "membership" in a royal house was determined by her MATRILINEAL descent from Henry Tudor through her mother and grandmother, and the "historically correct" royal house is that of Tudor. The "House of Grey" was never a "royal house," not even when Jane was queen. Had Jane remained queen, the "royal house" would have been that of Dudley, taking the name of her husband in accordance with ancient English social custom. As evidence of the validity of this last, read up on the reasons why the current English "royal house" is today known by the name of Windsor. Bottom line: the sections detract more than the add, in my opinion. PhD Historian (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Headline change

Someone has changed the title of this article, but the new title, Jane I of England, is problematic. Virtually no one, including academic historians and history professors, ever refers to Jane Grey as anything other than "Lady Jane Grey." And she would not be known as Jane "the First" unless there had been a Jane II after her. Can I be so bold as to ask for some discussion on whether or not the new title, "Jane I of England," should remain, or whether the article should instead be titled "Lady Jane Grey"? For my own part, I am a big fan of things being factually correct ... and Jane of England is factually correct. However, one must also be practical. Wikipedia users are exceedingly unlikely to search for "Jane the Queen." They are far more likley to search for "Lady Jane Grey." As a nod to simple practicality, I am of the opinion that the article should remain under the title "Lady Jane Grey." PhD Historian 21:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, this discussion was previously held, and Lady Jane Grey was the title selected. The proper way to change the title of the article would have been to place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This would then be discussed, and the page moved to the title decided on (or left in place). Since this wasn't done, I'll move the page back to where it started from; if anyone wants to change the title, they can follow the appropriate steps (though I'd recommend against it; she's almost always referred to as Lady Jane Grey, and there's no reason to make users wonder where to find her.) - Nunh-huh 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Family tree

i'd like to suggest that the family tree be changed from left to right (i.e. Lady Jane Grey on the right). This is a more natural way of reading it (in english anyway). Stanlavisbad (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, genealogical stemma have for centuries been written, displayed, and read in a vertical direction from top to bottom. This pattern has been used in most European languages, not just English. PhD Historian (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, i'm aware of this. either vertical or L-R would be more preferable i think. possibly selected great-grandparents (i.e. only the ones relevant to the article) would also be a good modification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanlavisbad (talk • contribs) 10:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. See my note above under "Unnecessary and erroneous trivia." PhD Historian (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Jane I

How come she is not refered to as Jane I? i mean i don't remember Edward VIII being coronated, so why does he get title of King whilst Jane is only a Lady? Seriously i need info on thisOsirisV (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the British are concerned: [1] the heir to the throne become monarch on the death of the previous monarch; coronation has nothing to do with it. It's a nice ceremony, but it's not a necessary one. [2] A king or queen is never numbered "I" during their reign, but becomes a "I" only after there's a "II". So, it's "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom", not "Queen Victoria I of the United Kingdom" (since there's not been a Victoria since), and the first Queen Elizabeth didn't become Queen Elizabeth I until there was a Queen Elizabeth II. This is a different convention than used in most other monarchies, where, for example, there is a King Juan Carlos I of Spain. - Nunh-huh 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nunh-huh is correct in saying that the heir inherits the throne immediately upon the death of the previous monarch. The coronation is much more than "a nice ceremony," however, and is very much necessary. Although the monarch is still the monarch prior to his/her coronation, the religious ritual of the anointing and crowning is a necessary process that elevates the monarch to a new semi-religious status, especially in sixteenth-century eyes. Prior to anointing, a monarch does not possess the same symbolic status and "mystique" as one already anointed. Once anointed and crowned, one's right to be king or queen was usually considered (at least until the 17th century) to be the will of God and therefore inviolate. Only the coronation ritual provided that degree of divine protection. Thus many monarchs in the English line were anxious to be crowned as rapidly as possible lest some rival claimant beat them to it and imbue themselves with the greater symbolism associated with anointing. One need only look at the dispute between Matilda and Stephen in the twelfth century to see an example of this. Or the usurpation of the uncrowned Edward V's throne by Richard III in the 1580s. PhD Historian (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Necessary" except for the fact that it isn't, then :). "Useful", perhaps, is a better synopsis than either "necessary" or "nice". My point is that the tradition of the British monarchy stands in stark contrast to the French monarchy, where the "sacre" makes the king. That distinction may become less distinct as you look further back, but it's still a clear distinction. - Nunh-huh 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Nunh-huh, we will have to agree to disagree on this point. From my studies of political cultural attitudes toward monarchy in the pre-modern period (in the English context, before the constitutional changes of 1688 and 1714), the ritual of anointing within the coronation ceremony did indeed "make" the king in much the same way is the "sacre" did for the French monarch. Legitimacy of a claim to the crown in the pre-modern period was verified by the anointing process, and the act of anointing and coronation translated that claim into secular and spiritual fact. There is a large body of literature available on the subject. I am willing to concede, however, that the French attitude toward the person of the monarch was characterized by a much greater degree of religiously-based deference than was the English attitude. French monarchs were much more successful in their pursuit of absolutist authority justified by their claim to a status as God's chosen secular representative on earth. This was in large part due to the nature of the French political and legislative structure. England's structures were much different and the political culture was far less tolerant of monarchs who pressed their absolutist claims. Charles I lost his head long before Louis XVI did, in part because he attempted to exert his claim to divine authority to rule without consultation with Parliament, an authority he considered his by right of having been anointed at his coronation. PhD Historian (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I shall content myself with your semi-agreement, then. - Nunh-huh 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actualy i added the "I" as a replacement for Queen, also cos some people type Stephen as Stephen I (according to my book on monarchy)OsirisV (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The article should not so hastily take the position that she reigned. The lists of Monarchs in many sources go straight from Edward VI to Mary I with no Jane in-between. These include a genealogical chart available from the Royal Family's website in the U.K. Other posts here admit that nobody says "Queen Jane", "Jane I", "Jane of England", or "Jane I of England", but do we not wonder WHY no one uses that language? Dare I suggest that it's because it's not clear that she WAS Queen? The basis of Mary I's accession is not that Lady Jane Grey was Queen for a week or so but isn't Queen anymore (and, if she was, we have to ask how in the absence of abdication her successor can be Queen before Lady Jane Grey is dead), but, rather, is that Lady Jane Grey only THOUGHT she was Queen, but never was. The article as written does not make it crystal-clear whether Parliament ever agreed to Lady Jane Grey being Queen. Even if Parliament agreed at one time, then it later took the position that its earlier agreement was not RESCINDED (i.e. good at the time but later reversed), but, rather, INVALID (i.e. never good, not even at the time, because of defects (such as coercion) in proceedings). If Parliament NEVER agreed to Lady Jane Grey being Queen, then is Edward VI's will (withOUT Parliament's assent) sufficient to appoint Lady Jane Grey as Edward VI's successor if Henry VIII's will (WITH Parliament's assent) appoints Mary I as Edward VI's successor? I think Mary I's legal position has to be that Lady Jane Grey was never Queen. Mary I's legal position on executing Lady Jane Grey is not "You are, arguably, the real Queen, so to be the undisputed claimant I need you to die", but, rather, is "I have been Queen all along, you were never Queen, all arguments that assert you as Queen are invalid, which makes you a traitor, for which you'll be executed."

The archived talk page has much on this, on both sides, and yet the article still says she "reigned" and was "Queen".

If the British Government does acknowledge legal papers and such from the reign of "Queen Jane", it is also taking the position that Mary I committed regicide. If Lady Jane Grey was Queen and did not abdicate, how could somebody who was NOT Queen execute the Queen for treason without committing regicide?

With James II, Parliament concocted a theory that James II's departure was constructive "abdication", which ends a reign without death. So it was never necessary to assert that James II's entire reign never happened, nor to assert that William-and-Mary had been rulers all along since Charles II's death, nor to take James's Roman numeral "II" away from him, nor invalidate all of his regnal actions. He did reign, and he then abdicated, and so now William-and-Mary reign. That's the party line. With Lady Jane Grey the party line is "She never reigned. Mary I has been Queen since Edward VI's death".

I do not say that Lady Jane was never Queen, nor that she was. I just think that Wikipedia should, as an encyclopedia, remain neutral and not so over-hastily endorse the "Jane Was Queen" faction. Before the dramatic sales increase in epochal romance-novels of the 1980s, I never saw or heard Lady Jane referred to as "Queen", only as a possibly unwilling Pretender.

Boxes by which readers hop from title-holder to title-holder should not omit Lady Jane Grey, since if she is included readers can decide for themselves whether she was a Monarch or not, and if she is omitted they won't know there is a dispute. But the successor to Edward VI could be listed as "arguably" or "tenuously" Lady Jane Grey, with Lady Jane Grey's successor being Mary I, and Mary I's predecessor being "arguably" or "tenuously" Lady Jane Grey. OR the successor-box for Edward VI could be divided in half vertically between Lady Jane Grey and Mary I, while the predecessor-box for Mary I would be divided in half vertically between Edward VI and Lady Jane Grey.

I wish to agree that the absence of a coronation has nothing to do with not being referred to as "Queen Firstname". That little of materiality or legal consequence happens at a coronation is not refuted, but, rather, is confirmed, when posts espousing the contrary notion resort to words such as "mystique" or "symbolic". The very choice of such words over words of substance tacitly concedes that coronations do not change the machinery of state. An encyclopedia should dwell (at least in history-articles) upon the real, not "mystiques" and "symbols".64.131.188.104 (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Rather than compose a lengthy point-by-point response and refutation to our anonymous but articulate contributor's note on the validity of the title "Queen" as it applies to Jane Grey Dudley, I will simply suggest that he/she consult recent scholarship on the role of Parliament in determining monarchical legitimacy in the period before 1649 and/or 1688. I will, however, observe that the argument presented in that context is entirely moot since it assumes a circumstance that did not appertain: Parliament did not sit during or within three months of Queen Jane's reign, and thus it did not take any position whatsoever on the legitimacy of her reign. Further, the first of Mary's Parliaments likewise said nothing about the legitimacy of Jane's rule. Parliament played no role in legitimizing the reigns of monarchs prior to the end of the 17th century, making that thread of argument at best counterfactual.

He/she might perhaps also consider some of the many other English monarchs, prior to Queen Mary, who attempted to invalidate the reign of their predecessors in order (at least in part) to escape accusations of regicide. Consider, for example, Edward IV vs Henry VI and Richard III vs Edward V. He/she might also consider Mary's own prodigious predisposition for ignoring obvious realities in favor of what she wished the facts to be (e.g., the nature of her relationship with Philip). Regarding his/her statement, "Before the dramatic sales increase in epochal romance-novels of the 1980s, I never saw or heard Lady Jane referred to as "Queen", only as a possibly unwilling Pretender," perhaps he/she might consider consulting some of the histories and chronicles written before the 19th century and consider the role that re-imagining played in establishing "official" histories during the high-Victorian period. There is a large body of academic literature related to Victorian-era history writing and the construction of a re-imagined and idealized national identity. And as for implying that "mystiques" and "symbols" are somehow less "real" than "material ... substance," I wonder if our contributor remains coldly unmoved in the presence of celebrities from whatever field he/she feels drawn to? Would he/she have the same emotional "gut" reaction to chatting up his/her favorite movie star that he/she would have when chatting up a local shop clerk? Again, there is a huge body of scholarly literature on the social and cultural importance and impact of the "symbols" and "mystiques" that he/she so readily dismisses as unimportant and meaningless. PhD Historian (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then, what makes her Queen? Some people will say that at some point in his life Bonnie Prince Charlie was King. Other people will say he never was. I don't agree or disagree with either camp. If you adopt ONE set of standards for determining the question, Bonnie Charlie was King. If you adopt ANOTHER set of standards for the question, Bonnie Charlie was never King. What is the set of standards that one adopts that causes one to say "Lady Jane Grey was Queen for a short while"? Is it Edward VI's will? But the article says that that will breached the law. You say that Parliament was not sitting and so could not designate her to be Queen. So, then, what is it that causes her to be Queen? (I hope that this sounds like it is a question from someone who doesn't know something and would like to know it, and hopes you'll answer, rather than a rhetorical question in cross- examination from someone who is trying to make a point by asking a question that won't be answered. It is the former.) 64.131.188.104 (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

In the pre-modern period, monarchs were "made" or confirmed in office by one of two standards: military conquest (e.g., William I and Henry VII) or common consent of the nobility. Even though it may sound very amorphous, if a majority of the nobility favored a specific individual, that individual could be elevated to the throne. Under normal circumstances, the nobility were inclined to favor direct lineal inheritance, a pattern that usually matched their own accession to and familial maintenance of titles and status. They then expressed their favor through several mechanisms. The single most important of these was the portion of the coronation ceremony in which the assembled nobility publicly voiced their explicit affirmation of the candidate's right to wear the crown. Constitutionally, "the common people," even as they were represented by the House of Commons, had no voice in who sat on the throne. The monarch was chosen by the nobility as hereditary and "natural" leaders of the common people.

The nobility did occasionally set aside strict lineal inheritance on favor of collateral inheritance, if a collateral candidate was thought to be a more viable one. Such was the case with Henry IV, who became king on the basis of both consent of the nobility and military conquest, even though the direct lineal heir to Richard II was the child Edmund Mortimer. Likewise, the nobility chose (under suspicious circumstances) the adult Richard III over the child Edward V.

In the case of Jane Grey Dudley, a majority of the nobility, together with most of the leading law officials and City of London officials, signed the letters patent drawn up by Edward VI to enact the conditions set forth in his will. It was not Edward's will that elevated Jane to the throne, but rather the consent of the nobility and other leadings officials to that will, codified through their co-signing of the letters patent. The House of Commons was, in the mid-Tudor period, still relatively easily manipulated by crown and nobility, so that it was assumed in June 1553 that there would be no difficulty in getting Parliament to ratify the terms of Edward's will at the planned September sitting ... though their consent was not constitutionally required.
The Privy Council's plan to seek Parliament's input is often misunderstood today. The plan was not to gain Parliament's consent for Jane to be queen, but rather to have Parliament pass an act similar to the Henrician Acts for the Succession. This time Parliament was to empower Edward (albeit posthumously and retroactively) to devise the crown by will, a nod to the precedent set with Henry VIII. This was nothing more than a tying up of loose ends resulting from the opinion of many at the time that the Acts similarly empowering Henry limited that power to Henry alone, after whose death it reverted to its traditional holders, the nobility. It was also generally thought that the child Edward could not alter by will the succession as it had been established by Henry and his Acts for the Succession. A larger constitutional issue was being tested here: who had supreme power and final say? Crown, or Parliament? That question would not be answered until 1649 ... in 1553 it was still an open issue. This was also precisely the era in which "public opinion" began to play a much larger role in determining political outcomes, and the nobility failed to assess accurately the degree to which the "common people" favored Mary as the heir. (There were, of course, many other reasons why the reign of Jane Grey Dudley failed.)

By the late Stuart period, consent of the nobility was effectively supplanted by Parliamentary (Commons and Lords[nobility]) statute law that codified direct lineal inheritance modified only by religion.

Bonnie Prince Charlie cannot legitimately be considered a true king of England because he never gained the favor of an effective majority of the nobility in England and he failed in his attempts to gain that favor by military conquest. PhD Historian (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, during the short period when Prince Charles Edward Stuart was de facto ruler of a limited area, he did not claim to be king, he claimed to be acting as regent on behalf of his father. The discussion about Jane was had before, see above, this page was briefly moved to Jane I of England but moved back again. I think there was an argument here: "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc.... But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous." (From Wikipedia conventions on names and titles.) See Margaret, Maid of Norway for how a comparable Scottish dispute was handled. PatGallacher (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the monarchs of England box, which appears on several articles, takes an extreme inclusionist view by including several controversial cases: Sweyn Forkbeard, Edgar the Ætheling, Matilda, and Jane. PatGallacher (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PatGallacher that Wikipedia is taking a way to inclusive view that is outside of the mainstream. Is it not policy that we don't give equal weight to minority opinions? Jp1701a (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Myths about Lady Jane

PhD Historian, you've deleted a lot of commonly-held, but inaccurate, beliefs about Lady Jane. I'm not going to disagree with the deletions from the main body of the article, because if the material is wrong, it should not be there. However... that these beliefs were/are widely held is a historigraphical fact, and it might be worth having a "Myths about Lady Jane" section which lists some of the most common incorrect beliefs/stories about her, and documents why they are incorrect and/or unfounded (e.g. the stories of the events at her execution).

Similarly, the section on her titles could usefully go into some explanation of why they are the correct ones, and some discussion (e.g. the stuff about how many married noble ladies at that time kept their maiden names). The archived talk page, and this one, both contain a fair amount of useful information which could profitably be covered briefly in the article, to explain to readers why things they are reading about her elsewhere are incorrect... Noel (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that a "Myths" section is entirely appropriate for this article. PhD Historian (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Edward's will

Regarding RockStarSchiester's recent edit and his contention that Edward's will was not valid on account of his age: This is a very common misunderstanding of the actual circumstances. The will was not published alone. Rather, Edward drew up letters patent and coerced the Privy Council, principal law judges, and several official of the City of London into signing those letters ppatent. The letters patent specifically upheld the will as legal and valid, despite the dying king's age. Such an act of nullifying the qualification of age was wholly and correctly within the power of the crown. What was not within the power of the crown was the ability to set aside prior acts of Parliament. Edward's will was invalid because it directly violated the Act for the Succession of 1543/4, not because he was too young to make a will. PhD Historian (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Which would imply that Jane never was Queen according to law.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is there not some way to block User 69.58.51.2 from continuing to vandalize this article? He/she has been very persistent over the past few days and seems quite determined to spoil the article. Surely there is some mechanism to protect the article? PhD Historian (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The best place to ask for assistance is Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard. They usually respond very quickly to this sort of request. qp10qp (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They have already been blocked for a week. Keith D (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

It seemed no one was keeping the article clean lately except for vandalism reversions, so I did a big tidy-up session today.

An article created on February 6 2008 titled Cultural depictions of Lady Jane Grey had not been edited since its creation with the long lists of film/TV/cartoon references. I deleted the lists, which had not been removed from the main article but were near-verbatim in the culture article, then moved the rest of the 'Representations in culture' section over there in keeping with Cultural depictions of Mary I of England, Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England, and so forth.

I also rearranged some text and cut an entirely redundant section on the succession out. I haven't looked to see which one came first, but it was as if the second one had been pasted in while completely ignoring the first section. It made the entire article much harder to read and digest. Next, I made some new headings and moved several paragraphs around for better flow to the reader and to look more like the Elizabeth and Mary articles.

I checked all the references and formatted them uniformly. I checked each EL for existence and spam; I found two or three sites that violated WP:EL and removed them, and worked the ELs to newspaper articles into the article body (two went to the 'cultural depictions' article).

It's not perfect by any means, but it's better. If everybody hates it, please don't tell me. ;-) Just kidding - please _do_ tell me. Thanks - KrakatoaKatie 10:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. This is a very awkward article to work on. qp10qp (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The General Sorry State of This Article

May I simply observe that over the past few months a number of zealous and probably well-meaning community editors have re-inserted into this article a very large number of items that can easily be shown to be factually incorrect? Further, much of the language is value-laden or hyperbolic, better suited to (and probably lifted from) various novels and childrens' books than to any kind of authoritative reference work. Many of the narrative details are based on popular mythology, either directly or indirectly, and not on legitimate published scholarship. The recent editing of the subject's date of birth is a prime example. That edit undid a reference to fresh academic research recently published by one of the world's leading universities and returned the citation to an outdated, non-academic but popular reference source. The result of this and many other recent edits has left this article in a particularly sorry state, such that it is largely useless as a source of demonstrably factual information. I must repeat something I have said here over and over: As long as the well-intentioned but ill-informed general public are allowed to edit articles on subjects about which they are decidedly not experts, Wikipedia will remain poorly regarded by the education community. Wikipedia is little more than an over-sized discussion group, not an authoritative reference work. PhD Historian (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the specific issue of her date of birth, where are the problems with this article? PatGallacher (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, the account of her execution looks dubious. Alison Plowden may not be a professional historian, but her biography could be the best we have at present. You said there was about to be a biography by a professional historian, has it come out yet? PatGallacher (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article, but since it lies in my field of interest, I watchlist it. PhD Historian, there’s only one answer to your frustration: undertake a fully sourced revision, take it through peer review and FAC, and then resolve to keep a close eye on the newly featured article. If you haven't the time, then pray be gentle in your criticism, because nor have most people, and we are largely a bunch of amateurs. My experience is that with tight sourcing one can hold a good article in place and swat away poor editing with ease. Few bad editors come with sources; the editor armed with a shelf of books—in your case a library of them—prevails. If you’re prepared to rewrite this article, I will back you up fully and help protect the integrity of the result. I don't have any material specifically on Jane, as such, but I do have six or seven books on Edward VI and Mary, and many on Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, on the English Reformation, and on various Tudor topics. I have a history degree, I don't do popular history, and I am reasonably stalwart. What do you say? qp10qp (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder in what regard the account of her execution looks dubious other than that it is near contemporary protestant propaganda? I'm not a historian but I do happen to have a family copy of Foxes Book of Martyrs open next to me and the quotes attributed to the 1850 Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary are identical to the account at p1293 in my 1610 edition which in turn looks the same as the 1563 edition transcribed at http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/main/10_1563_0919.jsp. Perhaps some Wikipedia expert could update the reference - I daren't edit the main page myself, especially after the comments about amateurs! --S solt (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For examples of how Wikipedia has managed to deal sensibly with issues where there is an element of doubt or dispute, see the birthplace of Robert I of Scotland and the death date of Edmund the Martyr. PatGallacher (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the editor who put in the October birthdate by dint of most biographies having stated that month. Just because a person is not armed to the teeth in dubious degrees in history, etc. doesn't mean you need to belittle the years of research on the Tudors that I have done. What's more phd, new information does not necessarily mean correct info, unless your source travelled back in time and witnessed Jane's conception.jeanne (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor should you belittle research scholars, few of whom, in my experience, are "dubious". Their job is to review original evidence (travelling back in time is not necessary), and it is normal for them to make findings that revise assumptions.

However, all that is needed in this article is balance. At the moment the text itself is balanced, but the traditional date needs sourcing so that the Notes and Queries footnote is counterweighted. The reader might also be interested in an explanatory note on the issue. I would. qp10qp (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just have no patience with those who flaunt their degrees in other's faces and expect those same people to be awed.I am not and I still abide by the 5 october 1537 date, in spite of my degree-less statusjeanne (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As to her father being away in Jan.1537 that was likely 1538 due to the old calendar system.As for Anne Boleyn, I've seen a precise date for her 5 May 1501, but it was deleted from article when I added it as I hadn't shown adequate proof.12:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

What I've done is to add a reference for the October 1537 birthdate from Taylor and place his useful book in the bibliography. Both text and notes are now balanced and sourced. As far as Wikipedia goes, that should be the end of the argument, since our job is merely to report in a neutral way. qp10qp (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Remove, having read some more of the book. qp10qp (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had let it go until this morning, when our esteemed, self-titled historian sent me an insulting message on my talk page. Therefore, I'm going to insist that his work on Jane Grey be disregarded as it is nothing but original research on his part. I can provide numerous references to the October 1537 date, whereas, he's only using his personal opinions based on private research which is out of place in an encyclopedia. And, may I add that the next time our PhD calls me uneducated because of a personal belief and the fact that I may have made a grammatical error whilst replying in the heat of the moment,I shall have no qualms about reporting him for incivility. I'm not in the least bit intimidated by his academic status. It would behoove him to know that Wikipedia is a global effort which is open to academics as well as blue-collar workers. 11:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

PhD's findings are not original research for the purposes of Wikipedia, because he has published them in academic journals, and the information is cited properly. We are lucky to have him contributing here with the latest research: Britannica should be so lucky. On the other hand, the later date is also represented in published books, and PhD's information should be counterbalanced, giving the reader the full picture. Only when future books have followed PhD can Wikipedia favour the later date. qp10qp (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my persistence but what I am asking for is how he discovered this new information? For example, an American author ,Retha Warnicke insists that Anne Boleyn was born in 1507. Most other biographers favour the 1501 date just as I happen to, based on known facts and plain old logic. What I'm getting at is this, just because a historian comes out with a new set of facts, how can we be sure they are correct and not just an excuse to write an article to gain international recognition for his alleged "discoveries".Also, anyone can arrive at Wikipedia claiming to be a doctor, a renowned author or Prime Minister even!jeanne (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not about the editor's claims, it is about the material published in the referenced source. We are each no better than our edits. Both you and PhD need to grasp that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. You may disbelieve each other's dates, but so long as they come from published sources, both dates belong in the article. This is normal: where evidence clashes, the alternative interpretations should be presented to readers. qp10qp (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This topic has been discussed to the point of sheer exhaustion. Now let me get back to a far more polemic article that I am currently editing, namely the John F. Kennedy Assassination.jeanne (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Contracts

The contracts for marriage section is self-contradictory regarding a potential marriage between Edward and Jane. Hgilbert (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was Frances Brandon passed over when Edward gave Jane the crown on his deathbed? PatGallacher (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Northumberland had previously convinced Frances to give up her succession rights in favour of Jane.--jeanne (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Heiress

The very last section of the article states that Jane was preceded as heiress to the throne by Mary, & succeeded by Lady Catherine Grey. I have to ask why; not because I don't understand that Mary very pointedly didn't recognize Elizabeth as her successor, but I also know that Elizabeth didn't recognize Catherine as hers. It seems to me that the criterion for one must be upheld in the case of the other.FlaviaR (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jane of England

Shouldn't the title of this article be Jane of England? I know there are some issues with whether or not she was Queen however it seems that there is very little doubt by historians that she was Queen. I know that most articles try to use common names however for royalties it often to the contary. SeePrince Henry of Wales who is commanly known as Prince Harry. The Quill (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's arguable whether she was a queen or not. She was recognised as queen by the Privy Council (after a good deal of bribery and intimidation from the Duke of Northumberland, to whose son she was married), but not by the English people (Londoners greeted the proclamations with disdain). Her supposed legitimacy was based only on Edward VI's "devise for the succession", a hurried and contradictory document predicated on the assumption that monarchs had the right to choose their own successor. This flew in the face of English constitutional history. And though this right was assumed to arise from a statute that Henry VIII pushed through parliament to dictate the order of succession after his own death, Edward VI's devise was backed by no such statute and contradicted Henry's order of succession. Mary was quite clearly the rightful claimant to the throne, as most citizens knew by instinct (male children, then female children, of a monarch, in birth order), a political reality that the Privy Council was forced to swallow rather quickly. That Jane was recognised by the Privy Council in the Tower of London was the only jump she had on Mary, who was proclaimed simultaneously in the provinces and, however reluctantly by some Protestants, recognised there. So although on a technicality Jane may be called a queen, it is, in my opinion, far better this article be titled "Lady Jane Grey". There can be no argument that she was a lady; there can be endless argument whether she was a queen. qp10qp (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok most of that was pointless as I was asking whether or not she could be called Jane of England. I'm not bothered either way about whether or not she was Queen but I am quite bothered about this articels title. The Quill (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Jane of England" is a formula for a queen, though. Which is why I argued the point. I do not support this title, which would provoke objections and would have to be redirected to (who would search for "Jane of England" in wanting to read about her?) qp10qp (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

the Suffix; 'of England' is not an unique suffix for monarchs it was also used for members of the Royal Family. The Quill (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if they were not a prince or princess? qp10qp (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"It's arguable whether she was a queen or not." I agree with that, qp10qp, if by queen you mean Queen de jure, but there's little doubt that for a short time Jane was Queen de facto. Her claim was thin and based on little more than the Will of Edward VI, but even so it was better than that of some other European monarchs whose status isn't questioned - perhaps because they reigned for longer. I think the point about the possible "Jane of England" title for our article is that it follows the general pattern for all other English monarchs who reigned before the Union with Scotland. The Quill raises the issue of whether Jane was a princess. It may help to point out that the title of Princess wasn't used in England at the time, and even the concept is out of its time. Before they came to the throne, Jane's cousins Mary and Elizabeth were called "The Lady Mary" and "The Lady Elizabeth". Xn4 (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They also called themselves "princess": (Letter from Mary to Henry: "Your most humble daughter, Mary, princess" (Erickson, Bloody Mary 1978, p. 113). Northumberland tried to get the imperial ambassador Scheyfve to stop referring to her as a princess, but then, comically, forgot himself and sent her full arms "as princess of England, as she used to bear them in her father's lifetime". When Elizabeth was christened, she was proclaimed like this: "God of his infinite goodness, send prosperous life and long to the high and mighty princess of England, Elizabeth" (Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, 1938, p. 16). The same could not be said of Jane.

And it is also arguable whether Jane was de facto queen. Mary was proclaimed far more widely than Jane (Jane was massively outproclaimed, if there is such a word). Jane was in effect an anti-queen, who was only ever really recognised by a few frightened men holed up in the Tower (the list of names drawn up by Northumberland was illegitimate, based on bribery, browbeating, and intimidation). I would put her on a list of monarchs, maybe, but in small type and in brackets. More to the point, the disadvantages of changing the name of her article are too many. The naming conventions on Wikipedia are, in any case, never perfectly consistent, because the rigid rules sometimes give way to exceptions for familiar names. In this case, the majority of readers will look Jane up under her familiar name. (One could also argue that her name was Lady Jane Dudley, of course, but this too would be an unhelpful name for the article.) qp10qp (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that Jane could be classified as both de facto and de jure Queen of England. Edward VII proclaimed Jane as his successor so technically she was the legal Queen of England. The Quill (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

His "devise for the succession" was illegal. Jane's position as queen was supposedly legitimised by the signatures of the Privy Council and of various nobles and bigwigs; but Mary was being recognised by other nobles and bigwigs in the provinces. Edward had no legal right to name his successor, though he thought he did because his father had done so. Henry had done it by statute, however, and had named his children (in the end) as his heirs. So, though Henry had done this as if his word was the law, it was not a problem since his oldest son succeeded him anyway. But it was a problem for Edward to try to name a successor outside the given line, in a document that was not only anomalous (and inconsistent) but contradicted Henry's final succession act. Northumberland couldn't have his cake and eat it, as it proved. I'm not, though, saying that Jane was not a queen de facto in any sense, but that it is arguable that she was not. In my opinion, it would court problems to name this article on the basis of an arguable interpretation of her status. qp10qp (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

At that time the King was considered to be the law. It wasn't possible for him to commit a crime asuch, he could rule by Divine Right. With the support of the privy council as well this made it law even if other nobles were against the law. The Quill (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral royal prerogative was never accepted in England (see Charles I). Henry and Edward thought their word was the law, but they were proved wrong. Henry at least understood that he had to have his succession choices passed through parliament by statute. But even that didn't change the order of succession. Henry tried to rule out the Scottish branch of the succession but that was illegal, and James I came to the throne in due course, despite Henry's ruling. The traditional succession overrode the word of the monarchs. Elizabeth knew this; even Mary sensed it: in the end, she did not copy Edward's trick of trying to cut a legitimate heir out of the succession. qp10qp (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't use Charles I as evidence as he was a later monarch at which point opinions had changed. The fact is Henry was never proved wrong about Divine Right. Its not ever been illegal to proclaim your successor. The fact is that Edward VII's word was taken as law and the Privy Council made it law. The Quill (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not much of a law if everyone ignores it. Laws have to be passed. That's what acts and statutes were for. Mary was legally queen, as everyone knew, even those who despised her religion. As soon as she heard of Edward's death, she wrote to the Privy Council telling them to obey her—for the few days that they did not, they were acting illegally. qp10qp (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Qp10qp. Jane was always known in history as Lady Jane Grey, not Jane of England. The latter would only serve to confuse readers. In some books on English and British monarchs, Jane isn't even listed.--jeanne (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is now less about the article name and more about whether she was a queen so I think that shoudl be the focus of this debate from now on.

Jeane boleyn, you can't use the fact that the majority ignored the law as evidence that jane wasn't queen and the law was passed by the King (as was his right at the time) and by the Privy Council. Mary is technically an upsurper, the fact that she had more right (thorough lineage ...) doesn't matter the law is the law. Unfortunatley the victor always gets to write the history. The Quill (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it's the name of the article that is more important than whether she was a queen. The latter is debatable, and, in the end, not decidable: she was and she wasn't. History books and articles can put both sides, but the article title proposed prejudges the issue. qp10qp (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

However, unless we consider her to be (somehow) a member of the Royal family the only thing that could change the name of the article is if she was a monarch. The Quill (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not a Marian supporter, however, the whole scheme to make Jane queen was planned by Northumberland, who persuaded Frances, (who came before Jane in the line of succession), to step aside in favour of her daughter, which he had no right whatsoever to do. Even a King cannot change the line of succession without causing civil strife. Elizabeth came after Mary, then Mary, Queen of Scots, as she was a descendant of Henry's eldest sister, Margaret, while Jane was the granddaughter of Mary, the younger of Henry's sisters.--jeanne (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot or not just because a monarch get on the throne dishonestly doesn't suddenly change the fact they were a monarch. The Quill (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would add only that Jane is recognized by HM Queen Elizabeth II as Queen in this link Lady Jane Grey. It seems then that as the current monarch of England (ie: The font of all honour in the UK) recognises Jane as a Queen who "reigned for 9 days", we should also. Therefore the title of this article should be changed to Jane of England with a redirect to Lady Jane Grey. The sovereign of the UK is the authority here, not our (or any one elses') individual opnions. fr33kman -s- 03:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that the sovereign of the UK is not the authority here, it is Wikipedia guidelines, which state that under some circumstances the name by which someone is overwhelmingly known in practice can override all other considerations. PatGallacher (talk)

The word of the monarch of the UK is law regarding her family, ancestors and the styles and titles of Britons, period! True wikipedia guidelines may state something different, but that doesn't alter that fact that Jane was queen and is recognized by the current queen as such. fr33kman -s- 06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I know her majesty has no authority on Wikipedia however this is a source which trumps (if you will) any source that says anything else. If the royal family claim that Jane was a monarch (considering they would have reasons to not delare her a monarch) means she was. The Quill (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

QEII doesn't determine the content of her website, which is full of questionable assertions and obvious errors. In any case, the queen's power doesn't extend back throughthe mists of time; if she were to opine that Jane was a queen, it would only be her opinion, which we certainly could cite in the article...if we attribute it, but it would not make Jane any more or less a queen. - Nunh-huh 11:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that the Queen's servants (ie: Her webmaster) would offer up something on the royal website that was not reflective of how she felt? Interesting. I wonder if people perhaps have an axe to grind here? fr33kman -s- 06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside that "QEII" is a recently-mothballed ship, the real focus should be on what the readers would expect. "Lady Jane Grey" is, in the end, the most common term for Queen Jane, and so per the naming conventions, we should stick to it and so serve our readers best.

James F. (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the recently mothballed ship would be "QE2". - Nunh-huh 12:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Split hairs? Not helpful to the debate! fr33kman -s- 06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

However technically the naming covention of England should be used on this article. I am going to contact Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and see if they can come to a convention as currently there seems to be no consensus. The Quill (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the notice at Naming conventions and came over. I think that "Lady Jane Grey" is the most appropriate title for the article. Much of the argument above seems to be based on the misunderstanding that our naming rules are prescriptive rather than descriptive. I see a lot of argument over whether Lady Jane was de jure Queen of England, with the implicit assumption that if this can be proven, she is "entitled" to have her article at "Jane of England". That completely misses the point. The reason we have rules about how to name monarchs is so we don't wind up with "Henry IV (of England)", "Henry V of England", and "Henry VI, King of England" — so that we create consistent expectations for users as to where to find an article. Given that most readers have heard of her as "Lady Jane Grey," it's only sensible to put the article there. The use of that title in no way prejudices our views on her de jure or de facto status as Queen, any more than the location of Frederick North, Lord North denies that he was Earl of Guildford. Choess (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Most readers would type in Lady Jane Grey and expect the article to come up as such. It would be like changing the article on Anne Boleyn to Anne Rochford or Anne Tudor, or Catherine of Aragon to Catalina Trastamara.--jeanne (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is why redirects exist?! fr33kman -s- 06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actualy as Henry married two Annes you couldn't name any article Anne Tudor as there is two of them. The thing is that I'm not certain that Lady Jane Grey is the commanly used name. The Quill (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Matilda of England#Queen of England. It's a similar issue. User The Quill believes that these two women should be treated as monarchs (he fights for the rights of disputed monarchs). We must maintain neutral point of view and maintaining NPOV doesn't mean claiming that these two women were undisputedly monarchs of England. Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not similar, really. Matilda was the daughter of her father, the King. Jane wasn't. So Matilda's circumstances were much more like Mary than like Jane. Matilda's campaign for support among the nobility lasted about 200 times longer than Jane's did, and as her son became King, she can be considered to have ultimately prevailed. And since you are determined that the present Queen is the arbiter of all things proper, please desist from ending your sentences with ", period!".Eregli bob (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There are sources that recognise Jane as queen, but for the moment the general convention in the UK is that she doesn't count as a monarch. I would argue that today's "official" sources, such as the royal website, would have to have the final say. Maybe one day they will change their minds and she will be rehabilitated as a monarch, but for the moment, no! Deb (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that the general convention in the UK is that she was not Queen? The sovreign is the only authority in the UK over who has (or had) what title, not the public and not the government either. You need to check out what UK law has to say on the subject. You'll find it's the Queen and no one else whatsoever who determines these matters. That is UK law and always has been! fr33kman -s- 06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That would appear to be contrary to the Act of Settlement 1701, passed by the crown in Parliament. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should revise that line. The offical sources as you call them do agree with me and anyway general convention should in no way hold priority over facts. I don't think that my points of views on whether they were monarchs should in any way affect whether the article is renamed. Article name and content are completely different matters. The Quill (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, WP:TRUTH disagrees with you on this Quill, sorry! fr33kman -s- 06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I really suspect that renaming the article would cause more problems than it solves. The main argument for renaming seems to be that this is "the right name", but we have plenty of precedent for cases where an overwhelmingly common name trumps a technically correct but hardly-ever used one.

Against renaming, we have various problems (in no particular order of importance) -

a) The implication that "Jane of England", a form not used by most sources, is 'correct'. I'd really want to see some heavyweight scholarly consensus for referring to her this way before we do that; a logical argument that this is how it should be isn't quite the same thing...

b) A broad usage favouring LJG in the 'outside world', as far as I can tell.

c) The implication that we're taking a position on the debate of whether or not she was queen - like it or not, this is how some people will interpret us doing the rename, and we don't want that unless we are agreed on taking a position in the debate and holding to it. LJG has the advantage of being used by both sides, so is relatively neutral here.

d) ambiguity; "Lady Jane Grey" is pretty clear, but Jane of England is a little vaguer - some sources refer to Joan of The Tower this way, for example. Not a major issue, though, since thankfully Jane was not an overly common name in this regard.

Yes, one of these is relatively trivial, but the two implications are ones we should seriously consider; if we're going to make this move, we need to be clear on what the page title is suggesting to the reader. Shimgray | talk | 19:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but consider if the page title as LJG does that say to the reader (who is the only imporant person in this debate) that this encyclopedia (a supposed source of factual knowledge) that we don't consider her to have been queen when the current monarch (ie: British law) does? Redirects exist for a reason remember. Google would still come up with LJG and our site would then redirect to JofE fr33kman -s- 06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point, but I don't think it's a problem, because - unlike most of our naming arguments - it isn't binary, it isn't a clear-cut one side or the other case. JoE says definitely "was queen", but LJG seems to me to be used both by the people who say she wasn't queen and by a sizable amount of those who say she was. I don't have much reference material to hand, but I've certainly seen plenty of stuff like this or this, which seem happy to call her LJG whilst being definite she was queen - people are happy to use unconventional names for things they treat as special cases, I guess.

I've been trying to think of what the closest thing to an official establishment source would be, and I guess it's the Dictionary of National Biography - this is ambivalent on the constitutional issue, calling her LJG, "noblewoman and claimant to the English throne", but elsewhere includes her in a list of monarchs. That article was written by Alison Plowden, whose own book seems to refer to her as "Lady Jane Grey" and as "Queen Jane", which is interesting, as far as I can tell from a flick through it in Amazon - I don't know what her line on Jane's legitimacy as a monarch was, though. Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is missing, I think, the most important point: article titles should not leave a reader who knows about the subject matter wondering Who?. This is the major problem with John of England; it is worse here, since there is a clear, obvious, commonly used, and effectively unambiguous name for the subject: Lady Jane Grey. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that fact that she was and is called Queen by so many sources means that we should do so also. I'm not convinced by the arguments of those who deny her reign; if the current Queen and the history books call her (including the author of this article) Queen, then for us not to seems like we are taking sides. fr33kman -s- 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jane Grey was never Queen of England. Period. Why some completist insist on trying to include her as such at Wikipedia is beyond me. Convential wisdom refers to the two little Tutors that came between the two big Tutors: no Jane. The myth of Grey as queen was largely an after the fact Protestant conceit to suggest that Mary's succession was never legit, which it clearly was. Jane's article has the succesion box which identifies her as as having "Regnal titles" and the article ridiculously mentions her "Predecessor" and her "Successor". Nonsense. Her "reign" was even more fanciful than those of the Jacobite pretnders, who nobody here seriously argues for inclusion. Charles Edward Stuart was in fact proclaimed and crowned king of Scotland on his father's behalf during the '45, which is a hell of a lot closer than Jane ever got to wearing a crown.

Edward VIII was never crowned either, does that mean he wasn't King? The government of the time recognized her as Queen and the King named her as such. Who are we to doubt them? The current monarch also recognizes her as Queen. It seems that there is a serious POV push going on here. fr33kman -s- 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The government of the time cut her head off. Funny way of recognition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jiřì Louda and Michael Maclagan's expert book Lines of Succession states clearly on page 25 that "...the Duke of Northumberland attempted to bring...Lady Jane Grey, to the throne. The coup enlisted no popular support and Mary...became Queen." (emphisis added).

So what, I can come up with a source for the moon being made of cheese, doesn't make it so. I'll say it again, Elizabeth II recognized her as a queen, who are we to decide otherwise? fr33kman -s- 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Lady Jane Grey is the proper title for this article. I make the above points a few times a year because this arguement never really goes away. -- Secisek (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said Secisek. Virtually all history books and encyclopedias list her as Lady Jane Grey, why should Wikipedia differ? What does The Complete Peerage call her? As I mentioned earlier, it would be like calling Anne Boleyn Anne Tudor or Anne Rochford. Jane of England would create ambiguity as well as controversy when both can so easily be avoided by keeping the article with her universally-recognised name.--jeanne (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Complete Peerage actually has less reason to mention her than you might think, as she herself was not a peer. However, when CP does allude to her, as it does in the article on her father-in-law, it seems to use "Lady Jane Grey" (though it does quote a diary which terms her "Jane the Queen" :). - Nunh-huh 07:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems that another important source (one that noble and royal watchers go to all the time for the "last word" on a subject) calls her Queen. Redirects exist for a reason. fr33kman -s- 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete Peerage quoted its source correctly; would we did the same, but that's not "calling her Queen" in any useful sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Fr33kman, if you can come up with a WP:RS that says the "moon is made of cheese" you can enter in to the article and it will have to stand. Wikipedia has nothing to do what is "so". It is about what can be cited with a WP:RS. The sooner you learn that, the easier time you will have here -- Secisek (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA! I have been on Wikipedia for ages and have a very good reputation as both an editor and as a member of WP:MEDCAB and WP:3 so don't, please, lecture me about 'anything!# I fully understand the rules and policies here and there are LOADS of RSs that quote Jane as Queen of England. Why do they not stand up here then? fr33kman -s- 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no response from critics, I take it that some people insisting that she remain as "LJG" is nothing more than a sad POV push! It seems to me that some people have a vested interest in Jane remaining a mere moble-woman who claimed to be queen but wasn't "really queen" (even though the current queen (and the currebt UK government) recognizes her as such [and so she was legally Queen of England]). It's kinda sad that a very small number of people with a very transparant agenda can rule Wikipedia without reference to the reognized facts [ie: she was Queen, even if for only nine days). If a Pope were to reign for only nine days, he would still be recognized as Pope; Jane is not recognized because of some peoples' personal adgenda and their POV pushing!!!! Sad! it detracts from that validity of this website! We take others, such as William I to be King (merely because he was stronger and won a war [a violent action]), but not a girl who was legally designated to be queen by the lawful King of the era. We just accept Mary because she was convient at the time and today perhaps!! fr33kman -s- 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are the one who pushes a certain POV. Using the most common form of the name used in English references is the main rule when it comes to naming articles and Lady Jane Grey is undisputably the most commonly used name for this woman.

If you want to rewrite the article in order to reflect your opinion that she was undisputably the rightful monarch for nine or thirteen days or until her death, don't be surprised by the opposition. I myself would oppose it because Jane's status is highly debated among the people who are actual experts on the subject. Here are some facts that favour Mary's claim: Jane was not legally designated as Edward's heir, because the line of succession was determined by Third Succession Act and therefore Edward's device to alter the succession was unconstitutional in its violation of an Act of Parliament. In the eyes of law, Mary was rightfully Queen of England from the moment her brother died until the moment she herself died. Comparing Jane to a pope or William the Conqueror makes no sense whatsoever. William of Normandy was crowned King of the English just like Mary was crowned Queen of England and Ireland. Coronation is the ultimate recognition of the monarch's right to rule and Jane was never crowned - i.e. she was never recognized as the rightful monarch by the Church. The pope is elected by cardinals, not by his predecessor, so this arguement is also invalid. Just because she is mentioned on the official website doesn't mean the parliament has retroactively recognized her as monarch. I don't recall Her Present Majesty ever saying anything like "Jane was queen and that's an undisputable fact". Even the official website can be quite wrong; take a look at their claim that the title of Prince of Wales can be given only to the eldest son of the Sovereign - what about George III?

My point is that the article is well balanced when it comes to Jane's status as a disputed monarch, perhaps even a bit biased in favour of the claim that she was an actual monarch (because of the title in the infobox and the succession box at the bottom of the article). Once again, don't expect us to agree with you when so many scholars don't agree with you. Surtsicna (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna - well, obviously, if the Royal website says that only the eldest son of the monarch can be Prince of Wales, then obviously George III was never Prince of Wales, no matter what George II and other contemporaries may have had to say about it. Because Elizabeth II gets to decide everything about who was ever monarch, and the royal website is the infallible arbiter of the Queen's decisions in this regard. Fr33kman's points in this discussion were entirely ridiculous - I wish I'd found it in time to argue about it, because it's quite fun. At any rate, I know the conversation is basically over, but I thought I'd weight in. In the question of whether Jane was queen, I'd say all signs point to no on both de jure and de facto, for reasons others have admirably expressed above. Mary was queen from the time of her brother's death, and was so recognized in the vast majority of the country. Those who claimed otherwise were behaving illegally, and Edward VI had no right to dispose of the crown as he saw fit - although obviously, if his designation of Jane as his heir had resulted in Jane successfully claiming the throne, it would be a different story. And, once again, royal.gov.uk is completely and utterly worthless as a source for most everything. john k (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I would call her a queen, the article title should remain as it is - most common/usual way in the UK of referring to her. But the royal.gov.uk website is inconsistent. The relevant bit of the family tree doesn't have Jane's name in bold, while http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page44.asp says she was queen, and that she reigned [if only for nine days]84.64.32.70 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I lived in Britain for 2½ years; Second, our family has a genealogical association through which we found that Sirs John, Robert, and Guilford Dudley are our ascendants. In doing the research we have found collateral information on the rules of order in the empire. Lady Jane Grey, if she were alive today, would be Dame Jane Grey because she was married to a king. She was his queen. When she was forced a divorce, she became a Dowager Queen. Because she was the mother of a monarch, Edward VI, she had more claim to the throne than Mary or Elizabeth. When Lady Jane died, Mary had claim, then Elizabeth. Davjohn (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, what??? This section is oldy and moldy, but this last paragraph is thoroughly confused/wrong. 98.67.178.18 (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I know this very long discussion ended a while back, but since the question is repeatedly brought up and likely will be again, I'll just point out that while the official page for the monarchy does list Jane as a Tudor monarch, they do list her as "Lady Jane Grey." So if one argues that HM the Queen considers Jane to have reigned one must also argue that the Queen considers her official name to be Lady Jane Grey, not Queen Jane or Jane of England. History Lunatic (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

I think we can be quite confidant that the queen didn't write the webpage in question, didn't edit the webpage in question, didn't read the webpage in question, and is, frankly, quite unaware of the content of that page. Nor, really, would her opinion on this historical matter be dispositive. - Nunh-huh 04:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

First queen regnant?

The article says that Jane was recognized as England's first Queen regnant, but should't that honour go to Matilda of England? She was the daughter, and only surviving legitimate child of King Henry I!--jeanne (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You said recognized as England's first Queen regnant. Well, that honour should go to Mary I. After all, Mary I was the first female monarch of England whose monarchical status is not disputed by any scholar, while there are numerous scholars who dispute either Matilda or Jane or both of them. Surtsicna (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although Matilda's right to the throne was challenged, and she was subsequently dispossessed, by Stephen of Blois, nevertheless, as the legitimate daughter of Henry I, Matilda was the rightful successor to the English throne. When I visited Arundel Castle many years ago, the tour guide referred to Matilda. as England's first female Queen regnant.--jeanne (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Matilda was undoubtly the rightful heir (not monarch) of England, but as long as the majority of scholars cosider Mary I to be the first female monarch of England, we cannot claim that Matilda was Queen of England (let alone the fact that she never used that title). Anyway, I find Pitt Taswell-Langmead, Ashworth, Tyerman, Crawford, and other authors more accurate than tour guides. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mary I is considered the first undisputed Queen regnant of England. Afterall, hadn't Henry VIII growled that England had never be ruled by a woman before, during his eagerness to have a son? GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Henry II's claim to the throne was through his mother Matilda, also many of the nobles considered her their rightful queen. In point of fact, Robert of Gloucester, was one of her most loyal champions. I don't deny that Stephen duly became a monarch of England, but Matilda's place cannot be ignored. I would consider her an uncrowned Queen regnant, but that's just my humble opinion.--jeanne (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, it is just just your opinion because she is never (or rarely ever) included in the lists of English monarchs, leading to the conclusion that scholars do not consider her monarch of England. Haven't you noticed that there has been only one princess named Matilda since Empress Matilda and that there hasn't been any princess of England or Great Britain or the United Kingdom named Jane since Jane Grey? That's because the English and British monarchs themselves are not sure whether Matilda and Jane should be included in the numbering of monarchs. The fact is that Matilda was the rightful heir, but Stephen was crowned and Stephen reigned. Let's just remain neutral and keep the factual accuracy. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that we cannot change the article to say Matilda was Queen regnant, despite my personal opinion, the same goes with Jane Grey. As for Princesses of England and Britain not being named Matilda or Jane, that's probably due to the naming fashion of the times as well as superstition. Matilda or Maud was rarely used after the 14th century, and although Jane replaced the widely popular Joan in the 16th century, it was probably not used by the royals due to the fate suffered by Jane Grey and therefore considered unlucky.--jeanne (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, we've got Matilda & Jane listed (with dispute notes) at List of English monarchs article. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So I see. Hmm, I suppose it's really a matter for scholars to decide. I've stated my opinion but I'm definitely not a scholar so it's not of any relevance what a lay person thinks.--jeanne (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Royal children's names, the names John, Stephen, Thomas, and Richard are never chosen for Royal children, despite those being among the most common in England for the past 700 years.--jeanne (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard is not avoided, as far as I know (Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester?), and John is avoided only since the death of The Prince John. Stephen is definitely avoided and Thomas was never a popular name among the royals. My point is that the names Matilda and Jane are avoided because it's not certain whether Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey should be considered in reckoning regnal numerals. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Then by your reckoning the name Stephen is and has been avoided for precisely the same reason, being that Stephen usurped the throne of Matilda, who was indisputedly the rightful heir to the Kingdom of England.--jeanne (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Matilda was indisputedly the rightful heir to the Kingdom of England and was recognized as such during her father's lifetime, but Stephen was undisputedly monarch of England from the death of Henry I until his own death. We all agree that scholars are those who have to decide who was the rightful monarch and I've never seen a list of English monarchs that excludes Stephen. Surtsicna (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As there was a civil war which lasted a number of years, I don't know how you can say that Stephen's reign was undisputed. I checked four older history books, two of them list Matilda in the annals of rulers, two don't. None of them include Jane.Eregli bob (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither have I.--jeanne (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong picture or?

Counting from the top, the fourth picture is named Catherine_Parr.jpg . The description says "Catherine Parr, mistaken to be Lady Jane Grey". Can you please check cuz the article says the picture is "Lady Jane Grey or Catherine Parr". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.201 (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just come up in the article again. Verbatim text removed for consideration:

The portrait opposite has recently been identified as Katherine Parr {{citation-needed}} by the large jewel she wears. Historians were also in doubt that it was Jane as she was only 16 at the time of her death and the woman in the portait looks older.

If it's Parr, shouldn't the picture go? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Bernardoni, for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death of Edward IV

The article says that Edward VI of England died of tuberculosis. But his article here, Edward VI of England#Illness and death, says that the cause of death is not certain and offers cardio-pulmonary infection as an alternative. This is not consistent. Perhaps the article should say that Edward probably died of tuberculosis, or that he did die of that or something with similar characteristics.

Alternatively, perhaps the cause of his death is not relevant to this article.James500 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that in this article? PatGallacher (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed pic

File:Lady Jane Grey (by an unknown artist).jpg

Painting sometimes claimed to depict Lady Jane Grey; by an unknown 16th century artist.

I removed this picture on the grounds that this is not in fact a picture of a painting that is sometimes claimed to depict L.J.G. What this is is an engraving after a pain ting (of which we don't seem to know the whereabouts) which.... well, it's anybody's guess because this isn't the painting.

I have found, and referenced the painting that the other engraving pertains to. There is a good chance that the pic that I have reference actually is Lady Jane Grey.

As far as I'm concerned, two engravings based on paintings is quite sufficient. Nobody knows, but it does look very much more similar to the known painting of Catherine Parr.

Amandajm (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Testatory

Sorry I'm not a regular contributor and I don't know the rules for such. I happened to be reading the article and I encountered difficulty. Under the section titled "Claim to the Throne and Accession" I encountered this sentence which had a word "testatory" which despite IMHO having a pretty good vocabulary I had never heard of that word. So I looked it up and found it to be a very rare word meaning something like "bearing witness." This is the sentence in the article: "This may have contravened customary testatory law because Edward had not reached the legal testatory age of 21." I found it confusing, again I apologize I am not a regular editor here just a humble reader but my thought was, for the good of the Wikipedia project, is there a better word that won't stop the average reader and make him/her go to the dictionary to understand the information in the article. Thank you for considering my input. Regards, -Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.115.90 (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Testatory" (tess-TAY-tor-ee) means, "of or pertaining to a will." Serendi^podous 22:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey's relationship to Edward VI

I believe Lady Jane's relationship to Edward VI would be correctly referred to as first cousins once removed. As the granddaughter of Edward's aunt, Princess Mary, Jane and Edward were not of the same generation. In fact, Jane's mother, Lady Frances, and Edward were first cousins, making Jane and Edward first cousins once removed.

Mhrogers (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey

Lady Jane Grey lived from 1367 till the 12th of February 1554. She is famous because her family and herself all owned a building called Shute Barton in Shute and now it is an old monument in Shute. In Shute it is one of the most famous and old buildings there. It is now been taking care by the NHS. Her Family Bloody Mary her 1st cousin Queen Elizebeth her aunt Her Death Blooy Mary executed her when she was queen. Lady Jane Grey was executed at the age of 16. The Mystery There was an mystery of how Lady Jane Grey looked until somebody discovered a painting then now people and artists are painting paintings of Lady Jane Grey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.39.22 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

From 1367 to 1554, huh? That's very impressive! She'd be more famous for that than anything else! ~ HammerFilmFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.178.18 (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has bothered to delete the ludicrous, unhelpful commentary made back in October 2009!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The 15-year-old child

"this was a 15 year old child, brought up to be devoutly religious, hardly a brilliantly open, creative mind!! One biased novelist does not make a reliable source"

I understand your emotional reaction as being quite natural. Who would think that an ordinary 15-year-old would be much of anything but a totally delightful giggly adolescent girl? I suppose at one level Jane was that or would like to have been that. However, you are not taking into account the phenomenon, well-known and well-documented, of a prodigy. Can a 4-year-old learn integral calculus? Can a child compose symphonies? Well, mainly no. But, some of us can do and have done that. It is in fact possible. You might get a clue from the fact that at age 16? Lady Jane was made queen with the full expectation that after an initial period of her mother's guidance she would be a good one. Nothing in the 9-days rule belies that expectation. Jane fell victim to the struggle between Catholics and Protestants, nothing less. But, you are not seeing the big picture, my friend (or friendess, whatever). Take a good look at Henry VIII and his family. Despite his tragic and misguided treatment of his queens - a position into which the society of the times forced him and for whom they seem to have had little sensitivity or compassion - he had been in his time one of the best and most capable kings ever. When he chose his women he did not pick the least capable and giddiest young ladies of the realm. His children were NOT ordinary, they were among the most capable society had to offer and extraordinary educational care was lavished on them with the full expectation that any one of them might be asked to rule. As it turned out they needed every bit of talent just to stay alive. The last left alive was scheduled for the same fate as Lady Jane but a stroke of luck (or providence) made her Queen Elizabeth I. This vivacious and brilliant red-head led England through some of its most difficult times. Now, this band of cousins, so to speak, which was forced into battle with life and society at an early age, was in fact known for its linguistic talent, interest in and ability with the studies that went with the social position. The best tutors pulled from Oxford were astounded. This is by definition prodigious. Your own reaction is skepticism and I have no doubt were you to look further into the matter your disbelief would turn to the same wonder expressed by the tutors. Don't forget also that some people are not allowed to have shy and giddy puberties but are thrust into difficult positions at an early age. There have been a lot of those, male and female. Alexander, who had Aristotle as a tutor, when he died as a young man in his 20's, had conquered a huge empire, demonstrating a prodigious military, social and political judgement. I feel bad for Lady Jane. She paved the way for her equally brilliant cousin Elizabeth. In view of these circumstances I am not only keeping what was said but I am supplying the references for which you asked. Moreover, you seem to have Wikipedia-itis. You are so used to supplying your own off-hand opinion that you think it is always right. I say old chap (or chapess, whatever), do your homework first. One biased novelist indeed!Dave (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The footers, the footers

Those bands that go across the page and can be expanded, well, those were designed to go across the bottom. The situation here is made complex by the fact that a succession box is present. The administrators gave us the succession box and they blocked access to the templates to all but administrators. The problem is, you can't adjust the width of a succession box. I would put in a width parameter but I cannot access the code. Why couldn't you use an infobox? Well, no matter, but unfortunately most bottom boxes go across the page. Now, if multiple bottom boxes are present, they form a terribly ragged bottom. I find that unprofessional looking and unesthetic. The succession box sequence clearly has to go at the bottom after the other bottom boxes. You will be sseing this notice in many other ragged bottom articles. You've heard of ragged right, right? No one ever sees ragged left. This is ragged bottom and no one should ever see that either.Dave (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not tried this out but {{Navboxes}} looks as though it can wrap the succession boxes and display them at full width. It may be worth experimenting to see if it gives you what you are looking for. Keith D (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried reordering it for the time being, to be narrow-wide-wide rather than wide-wide-narrow, which whilst still a bit suboptimal looks less awkward. Shimgray | talk | 11:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Jane of England"

Jane Grey is a oficial queen of england, on oficial page of British Royal House is wroten it. Jane must be known as Jane of England don´t as Lady Jane of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CORTEZ-MEDINA (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I was curious about this myself. I found this link from the Official Website of The British Monarchy, and Lady Jane is listed among the Tudors as having "reigned for only nine days". Wouldn't the Royal Family be the ultimate authority in this case? just Eleos 19:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, the same website refers to her as "Lady Jane Grey" rather than "Jane". just Eleos 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Which Seymour was charged?

The last sentence in the section quoted below seems as though it may be grammatically at odds with what it's trying to convey. It reads as though Thomas Seymour's brother Edward Seymour "was charged with proposing . . . ." I think what is intended is that Thomas Seymour was the one charged. As the next paragraph of the article says, Thomas Seymour was convicted by attainder and executed. Alternatively, maybe the sentence means "charged" in the sense of given an assignment, rather than accused of a criminal offense. If that's the case the sentence may be correct, although to this non-historian reader it's bit confusing.

After Henry VIII died, Catherine Parr married Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley. Catherine died shortly after the birth of her only child, Mary Seymour, in late 1548, leaving the young Jane once again bereft of a maternal figure. Jane acted as chief mourner at Catherine's funeral. Jane returned to her parents after Catherine Parr's death, yet Seymour showed continued interest in her, and she was again in his household for about two months when he was arrested at the end of 1548.[9] Seymour's brother, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, who ruled as Lord Protector, felt threatened by Thomas' popularity with the young King Edward, and was charged, among other things, with proposing Jane as a royal bride.

69.61.171.66 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Gerald Weigle, 13 February, 2010

I agree it's very confusing to the reader and should be corrected to specify which Seymour brother was actually charged.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see it has since been corrected, and now it makes sense.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Jane was Quene regnant"

Since there are disagreements over her status, it is obviously against NPOV policy to state so determinedly: "Lady Jane Grey was Queen regnant of England and Ireland..." What's wrong with a neutral statement such as "Lady Jane Grey is sometimes considered to have been Queen regnant of England and Ireland..."? The lead hardly makes any place for the doubt about her monarchical status and that's wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to work around this status problem—which is hardly ever addressed by historians and therefore must not preoccupy us at WP—is to reformulate why she is notable in the first sentence (WP:MOSBEGIN#First sentence). Something like: Lady Jane Grey was an English noblewomen who was executed for having occuped the English throne between 10 and 19 July 1553." She is most notable for being executed at a young age and for having been considered by "some" Protestants as a martyr. "What's wrong" with "Lady Jane Grey is sometimes considered to have been Queen regnant of England and Ireland..." is that it is an example of WP:WEASEL and not "a neutral statement" at all, implying that it is somewhat WP:FRINGE to say that she occupied the throne, which is not the case. No historian claims that England had another monarch than Jane between Edward's death and the proclamation of Mary by the Privy Council on 19th July 1553, nor is the word Interregnum used by anyone for this period of time. There are quite a number of documents Jane signed as Queen throughout her tenure and there was an administration operating in her name, when there was no such thing in Mary's name before 20th July. A recent as well as a forthcoming biography (by de Lisle and Edwards, respectively) argue that Jane played the part of queen activley and committedly. BTW, Encyclopedia Britannica online and Columbia online have no problem calling her queen in their first sentences in their otherwise dreadfully outdated articles. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So come up with something that you believe is neutral. This biography by Eric Ives says that she was a monarch and that she wasn't a monarch at the same time. We shouldn't choose one view and ignore the other. Ives says: "We have to turn tradition on its head and recognize that it was not Mary but Jane who was the reigning queen; her so-called 'rebellion' against Queen Mary was, in reality, the 'rebellion of Lady Mary' against Queen Jane. Mary's achievment was...the single occasion when the power of the English crown was successfully flouted [between the 14th century and the 17th century]. She alone of all the challengers succeeded in taking over government, capital and country, and in so doing ousted an incumbent ruler who had all the state's resources behind her. Had Mary failed as was expected, Jane Grey would have been the fourth monarch of the Tudor line..." In the first part, he considers Jane a queen - in the last part, he considers her a "would've-been monarch". Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's you who chooseth to decide the issue (by ignoring that she acted as queen), not I. I specifically suggested how we could avoid this question in the introductory sentence, as it is a moot point for any serious historian. So much to your "So come up with something that you believe is neutral." The problem remains that the first sentence (as of now) is weasellish and gives a distorted picture to the normal reader. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the former lead sentence was much worse, as it gave an incomplete and biased picture to the normal reader. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wyatt's Rebellion was not in behalf of Jane

Jane was convicted of high treason and condemned to death for usurping the Crown in November 1553, she was not the "centre of rebellion" in February 1554. The Wyatt rebels probably wanted to make Elizabeth queen, and furthermost wanted to prevent Mary's Habsburg marriage, as wanted most of the country, including parliament. Mary's government claimed the rebellion was in favour of Jane as a propaganda lie to kill the young people; English historians have never taken this seriously. More to the point, Jane is notable for having been executed very young and not for her imprisonment. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, everyone can calculate her age, so there is no reason fill the lead sentence with the years of her birth and death and her age at the moment of her death. Secondly, doesn't my wording solve the problem? "...she was imprisoned for having occupied the throne and [was] subsequently executed". Surtsicna (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The stated reason for Wyatt's rebellion was to prevent the coming of a Spanish king (and therefore the further entrenchment of Catholicism); this was not unjustified, as Philip was granted the title of King and his name appeared with Mary's on all official documents for the duration of her reign. To depose Mary, much less the thought of who to replace her with, was not a stated purpose as the rebellion never got that far. Wyatt exonerated Elizabeth from having any part in the rebellion.

As far as the Jane Grey angle, her father the Duke of Suffolk participated in Wyatt's rebellion, but just barely (he raised 140 men). The bigger issue that led to the execution of Jane and her husband Guildford was that after Wyatt's rebellion, Spain took the position that it would not be safe for Philip to come to England when rebellion still lurked and pretenders still lived (and up to this point, Mary was actually looking for a good time to release Jane from the Tower). In order to lay eyes and hands on her new husband, Mary had to get rid of claimants to the throne. Elizabeth had too much support as heir and was legally heir by Henry VIII's will and by Act of Parliament. Jane, however, had negligible support and worse, had usurped Mary's place once already; she had to go.

This was much the same position Henry VII found himself in during final negotiations of the marriage of his heir Prince Arthur to Catherine of Aragon. For England to be considered stable and safe from rebellion, Henry had to execute Perkin Warbeck and Edward Earl of Warwick. Spain had no desire to marry into a royal family that had a serious possibility of losing its throne, especially with the War of the Roses a not-to-distant memory. History Lunatic (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

Lead is poorly written

I think the lead could do with a complete rewrite. It contains too many dashes, and some of the sentences are awkward.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Place of birth?

In this article it says that Jane was born in Bradgate Park in Leicestershire. However, the statement lacks a source. In Leanda de Lisle's The Sisters who would be Queen (Harper Press 2008) it says that Jane was actually born at Dorset House, the Strand, London. (pp 5-8) What's correct? Is there a source for Leicestershire, or should it be exchanged for Dorset House, London? /--Idunius (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bradgate Park has been the traditional place ever since Victorian times and is mentioned in most books; de Lisle is probably right as regards this point, so it should be probably mentioned that there are now alternative locations, or so. A whole lot of things regarding Jane are in effect Victorian myths. While undoubtedly debunking many such relatively simple myths, on a wider scale de Lisle herself has a tendency to be very free with material, generally without making this sufficiently clear. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Would "Jane, the eldest daughter of Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk, and his wife, Lady Frances Brandon, was born at Bradgate Park in Leicestershire or, as is suggested by recent historiography, at Dorset House, the Strand, London"(ref) be ok?--Idunius (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need to list the alternative birthplace, especially in light of Jane's October 1537 birthdate having been recently debunked by historians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ives (p. 36) writes we do not know whether she was born at Bradgate. With most people of that era we don't know where they were born. If we don't know the month/year, it follows we can't know the place. Buchraeumer (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Author adding his own book

Can any knowledgeable and independent editor comment on the value to the article of The Documents of Lady Jane Grey, Nine Days Queen of England, 1553? There seems to be a WP:COI in that it's being posted here by the author and members of his family. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the value to this article of this book is nil, since (from amazon reviews) it seems to rely heavily on an 18th century collection of ficticious material, available at archives.org. These "letters" are clearly 18th century fabrications and, AFAIK, have not been taken seriously by Jane's biographers of the last 100 years or more. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Professor Eric Ives even mentions the Taylor book in question when dealing with "historical fiction"; he describes the 1791 book as an "early instance" of the latter: "It is full of letters between Jane and individuals real and fanciful, including a 'Lady Laurana de M' who was supposedly in love with Edward Courtenay. As recently as 2004 these were republished as possibly genuine, despite the publisher having been the William Lane who made a fortune from the Minerva Press 'gothic' novels which Jane Austen satirized." (Eric Ives: Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery, 2009, p. 284, with footnote 38 on p. 340, where he gives "J . D. Taylor, Documents of Lady Jane Grey (New York, 2004) as the source). Buchraeumer (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ascham ref missing

The biblio entry seems to be missing for the ref "Ascham 1863" - ie, there's no details about this ref (is it a book?)  Chzz  ►  14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've put this into "surname first", like the others; it was "Roger Ascham" --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jane declared queen in Gloucester?

I have not commented on wiki before, so please excuse any errors.

There is no mention of it in the article, but there is considerable rumour that Lady Jane Grey was declared Queen from the raised gallery inside the New Inn, Gloucester. Is there any historical evidence for this? If so, it could be mentioned within the article. I lived in Gloucester for several years and once enjoyed a lengthy stay at the New Inn - it is an amazing building (especially considering the state of the majority of Gloucester) and deserves mention IF there is any supporting evidence. The staff and management back in the 1980's certainly believed it to be the case. Would be interested in feedback.

Brambledog (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, she had been seventeen; but, the discussion page seems to indicate sixteen, fifteen, or whatever. She was killed for theology? That should be specified, in a clear statement. What is the history of England killing based on theology? That should be an article on its own. What would happen in the current millennium? The article should link to regnant.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 16:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Engraving

There is no known actual portrait of Jane Grey and the best depiction is the one that is at the top of the page. The engraving at the bottom of the page saying it is based on an earlier portrait of her -- are they talking about the NPG portrait that has been ruled out because that is what the engraving looks like; a copy of the NPG. Please see: Van de Passe Portrait It is quite clear that the brooch in the picture is that of the one used in the portrait for Queen Catherine Parr; which is specifically listed and described in the inventory of the Queen's jewels via this article and the actual list which is included in "Works and Correspondences" by Katherine Parr which was released last year. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mary Tudor's father

In this history, it is stated that Mary Tudor was the daughter of Henry VII. "Henry VII's younger daughter, Mary". Of course, she was not, but rather the daughter of Henry VIII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.71.67 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lady Jane's maternal grandmother was Mary Tudor, Queen of France, Henry VII's younger daughter. Henry VIII's eldest daughter was Mary I of England, also known as Mary Tudor. The latter was childless.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

de facto

The opening paragraph says "de facto queen of England". Cant really see how that is. Surely "de jure" if anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.107.192 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

By law (de jure), Mary Tudor was the next heir (according to Henry VIII's will as endorsed by the Third Act of the Succession). But Henry's case was unique; Edward VI's will did not have this force of law. Jane was declared by the Council and had possession of the Tower, and this gave her de facto power for the few days she reigned. Had she lasted until Parliament was scheduled to sit in September, and if Parliament passed an Act to alter the Third Act of the Succession, then Jane would have been Queen by force of law. History Lunatic (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

Date of father's execution

This article gives the date of her father's execution as 19 February 1554. However her father's page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Grey,_1st_Duke_of_Suffolk gives his date of execution as 23 February 1554. They can't both be right. I think... Or is this OS/NS? Surely that came much later? Riverwood (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC) I should point out that this near the end of the 'Trial an Execution' section.

I don't think it's a calendar confusion: 19 Feb 1554 Julian would be 1 Mar 1554 Gregorian. Henry Grey was executed in the Tower of London on 23 February 1554, per Cokayne's Complete Peerage. At first I thought that 19 Feb 1554 might be the date on which he was attainted, but in fact that was on 17 February 1554. I'll correct the date in this article with an appropriate citation. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Marriage date

There seems to be some conflicting dates here. Eric Ives (known as somewhat of an expert in Jane) and Leanda de Lisle state that the date was May 25, 1553. The wedding was a double wedding and is already stated to be on the 25th on Lord Herbert's page with the citation from Ives. -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been a very long time since I have tried to edit this article, but I thought I might try again to resolve some of the factual inaccuracies. Regarding the date of Jane Grey's marriage to Guildford Dudley, all of the contemporary accounts express the date not in the modern terms of month and day, but rather in the traditional terms of the liturgical calendar. The French and Spanish ambassadors, all of whom were in attendance at the wedding, state that the ceremony occurred on Whitsunday, also called Pentecost (with the exception of Thomas Hoby, who was absent in the Low Countries at the time, almost every other contemporary source agrees on Whitsunday, while Hoby gives a date early in June). Whitsunday is a moveable feast, and its date is determined annually relative to Easter. According to virtually every available moveable feast calculator that I have checked, Whitsunday/Pentecost in 1553 occurred on 21 May, *not* 25 May. And this is not an OS/NS issue, since the NS date corresponding to 21 May 1553 OS is 31 May. To Eric Ives's credit, he does not give an actual date but instead states precisely what the sources state: that the wedding "took place at Whistun" (p.185). De Lisle does, however, state the date in modern terms and gives 25 May 1553. But her footnotes indicate that she chose to ignore the contemporary accounts and instead to calculate the date herself based on the assumed sequence and timing of events and on a single warrant contained in the Loseley Manuscripts. That warrant was dated 20 May 1553 and requested the Master of the Revels to provide certain entertainments at the wedding "on Thursday next" (i.e., 25 May 1553). But given that those who actually attended the wedding recorded the day as Whitsun (21 May 1553), we must accept their eye-witness testimony as more reliable than the Revels warrant. Lady Jane Grey was wed to Lord Guildford on Whitsun, 21 May 1553. I leave it to the more active editors to decide whether or not to amend the article accordingly.PhD Historian (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wearing of the physical crown

Does anyone know if Jane actually did this or if she was only awarded the title but was usurped prior to being able to adorn herself with the physical representation? 174.92.134.248 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jane never had a coronation, but apparently she was shown the real thing to try on. Buchraeumer (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

de facto monarch?

It seems more appropriate to me to call her "de jure monarch": She had a strong legal claim but with the lack of recognition and actual power, it was likely more of a "name only" situation. Correspondingly, "de facto" seems to turn the actual situation on its head. 80.226.24.8 (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)