Talk:Lady Jane Grey/Archive 1

The following is an archived discussion of Lady Jane Grey. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Image

The image given in the entry is a portion of a painting hanging in the National Portrait Gallery in London (and a very nice painting it is). It's now strongly believed to be of Catherine Parr, sixth and final wife of Henry VIII, and not Lady Jane Grey after all.

I'd offer a replacement, but I know nowhere near enough to be able to say `yes, that picture's right'.

FWIW, the noted historian of the Tudors, Alison Weir, seems to agree that this portrait is of Katerine Parr. See "6 Wives of Henry VIII", pp. 504. Noel 15:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The image should be relabelled accordingly, and I will effect this. Sjc 10:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The full sized image on the right appears to be the same as the disputed image portion, is it still correct to use it for that section? At least without mention of the possible misidentification? - anonymous coward 17/03/2006

Okay, if is format this wrong, forgive me, my first time messing in wikipedia. I have a website on Lady Jane Grey (www.ladyjanegrey.org) and have researched her a lot. The reason they think the picture *may* not be Jane is because of the brooch being worn, which was known to belong to Cathrine Parr. However, Cathrine was fostering Jane, teaching her the ways of court, and it is possible she let Jane borrow the brooch for the painting. 08:39, 1 June 2005

Well, your theory is certainly quite possible. However, as there's no evidence one way or the other for it, we have to stay with what the current accepted thinking is among the broad range of experts in the field, which is that it's Catherine. I have tweaked the caption a bit to make it a little more plain that we really don't know for sure which it is. Noel (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's portraiture is a very difficult question and deserves a section to itself on the page. (Maybe I'll get some time...) But the, not very good, print on the front is not a picture that would now be asserted to be of her and I think that it ought to be replaced by a picture that at least some current writers would say WAS her.

The full length portrait of Catherine (see farthingale) was always believed to be of Catherine until Roy Strong came across the print we see on the front of the Jane Grey page here. It's quite wrong to say that it was traditionally identified as Jane, the reverse is true. Strong found the de Passe print in a 17th century book by Henry Holland. The print was labelled Iana Graya and Holland claimed that all his likenesses were based on real paintings. As this is:

(I've reversed the painting to counteract the reversal of the print). Strong was right to notice these are the same picture but unfortunately Susan James' work on the jewellery in 1996 'proved' (as much as anything in this field can be) that the sitter was wearing items listed in an inventory of gifts given to Catherine on her marriage to Henry. Holland's works are not completely reliable.

The NPG's website continues to list this image as one of Jane but it's an error. These pictures are of the same person and if the attribution of one changes, so must the other. Can we take it down? --Mr impossible 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr Impossible that the two images seem to depict the same person. And I agree that perhaps it should be removed from the article, since it only confuses viewers. There is, however, one small flaw in his assertion that the engraved image cannot be described as a portrait of Jane Grey: the artist who created the original engraving so labeled it. As such, it is an image of Jane Grey as that artist, van de Passe, imagined her to have appeared. And it was common for engravers in the seventeenth and eighteenth to begin with one prototype portrait and, by changing a few minor details, to re-use that prototype image under multiple different labels. This was especially true for historical figures who did not have an image already known to the average reader/viewer. Because van de Passe himself labeled the engraving "Lady Jane Grey," we must accept that as the proper title of the image. We cannot simply relabel an artist's work to suit our current need. Nonetheless, the engraving undoubtedly used the Master John portrait of Katherine Parr as its prototype, so that we can legitimately say that the van de Passe engraving is not an accurate portrait of Jane Grey, but is instead one of the many posthumous ones created from an artist's imagination. Only one life portrait of Jane Grey is documented, but it unfortunately remains lost, at least for the time being. Until that painting from the 1550s is found, perhaps it would be best to have no image of Jane Grey attached to the article, since we do not, in fact, know what she actually looked like? PhD Historian 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish role in execution

I'm wondering about the statement (on the page about Lady Jane Grey) that "the Spanish insisted on her execution"...How so? Does anyone know? It's the first time I hear this.

This claim is made in the movie Lady Jane, but I'm somewhat dubious about it; it may be an invention of the screenwriters (who also included other historical, errr, inaccuracies). Certainly, the precipitating event for her death was Wyatt's rebellion, and she was executed only 5 days after Wyatt was imprisoned, almost certainly too quickly for any communication with Spain over that particular rebellion (although not the Spanish ambassador) over the issue. None of the Tudor histories I have speak of a Spanish role; I'll update the page to reflect uncertainty, and note the role Wyatt's rebellion played.Noel 15:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another possible inaccuracy in the movie: In Edward and Mary David Starkey asserts it was Edward that did the bullying and cajoling for Grey. Kwantus 02:09, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

The Spanish role in Jane Grey's execution is clearly documented in the "State Papers, Foreign - Spain, for the Reign of Mary I" in the National Archives' Public Record Office. Those documents will be described in a forthcoming academic study of Jane Grey.PhD Historian 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity

I'm also curious about the statement concerning Jane's popularity among the population of England. Mary I's page states that SHE in fact held popular sway- contrary to what Jane's article states.

This seems to have been fixed. Noel 15:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Location?

Should this page be at Jane of England, in accordance with naming convention for monarchs? I know she's always called "Lady Jane Grey", but then Mary I of Scotland is always called "Mary, Queen of Scots", but that's not where her article is. The problem I have (and I'm actually not remotely sure where I really want this article to be) is that putting it here, when even people who are always called by a specific name such as Mary, Queen of Scots, conform to naming policy, makes it look as if we don't consider her to have been a monarch, when the article seems to imply that she was, at least in a technical sense. She also appears in the succession boxes between Edward VI and Mary I, which strongly implies acknowledgement of her rule. But as I said, I'm not sure. I just wondered what everyone else thought. Proteus (Talk) 22:49, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, and done.

James F. (talk) 22:59, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In my opinon, a very bad move which should have been discussed further before implementation, and a foolish consistency which does not improve Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 23:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It can always be moved back (and I'm happy to do the leg-work on that, if necessary).

James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but let's please wait for some discussion before moving things around. The naming conventions are designed to [1] prevent duplication of articles and [2] ease searching for articles, by providing a logical way of discerning where a given person's article will be located. Moving "Lady Jane Grey", a phrase universally used to identify her, to "Jane of England", a phrase that is never used to refer to her, does not seem to me to be of any benefit. - Nunh-huh 23:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's rather a blind alley comment - Lady Jane Grey, Lady Jane Gray, Jane Grey, and Jane Gray all now point to Jane of England (instead of the other way around, as it were); easing searching and prevention of duplication is, indeed, irrelevent (all, or at least, many, possible titles are covered), and the moving makes no difference to this.

'Policy' is a combination of what is written down as a general rule, and common practice; for members of royalty and those in the peerage, the standard (and hence, effective policy) is to locate articles at more 'correct' locations for clarity, even if this is unnecessarily... verbose, or perhaps not where one might necessarily expect. We always have redirects and/or disambiguation pages to attempt to serve all users' requirements.

James F. (talk) 00:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Jane of England" is not "correct", much less "more correct", and no one will be searching for it. When "policy" produces ridiculous decisions, policy should be reformulated. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Does it matter as long as the redirects work and everyone could find the article? Alensha 14:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it didn't, putting it at QfuxI48LoStIpP and pointing the redirects there would make everyone happy. - Nunh-huh 18:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This most definitely should be at Jane Grey. Rick K`

Genealogical table for Lady Jane Grey

Now here's a page where a genealogical table is essential. Better than a disputed portrait (why not just follow the opinion of curators at the National Portait Gallery, no?) The title "Jane of England" ....no, I won't say it... "Mary proved to have more popular support than Jane, partly because of the continuing sympathy for the treatment her mother, Catherine of Aragon, had received at the hands of Henry VIII." I believe this is lifted verbatim from Pope Leo XIII's History Tales for English Catholic Children, unless I'm mistaken, is it not? Wetman 21:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lady Jane/ Queen Jane?

Should we accord recognition to Lady Jane as a Queen? The Accession Council "revoked their former acts as done under coercion, and caused the lord mayor to proclaim Queen Mary" (1911 EB). Mary's accession proclamation recognises her as the successor to Edward VI, not as the successor to Jane. -- Emsworth 15:42, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Accession Council can make history, but shouldn't be entitled to write it here. If one listened only to Accession Councils one would remain ignorant of, for example, the Protectorate as well as of Jane. It's fine to point out the inventive legal fictions by which the illusion of continuity of monarchial rule is achieved, as long as it's attributed. Apparently the Council's historical revision was not so convincing at the time as to allow the continued existence of Jane.<g> - Nunh-huh 23:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I come to this deabte a bit late, but may I just point out that the modern British Government officially recognizes the reign of Queen Jane? The National Archives Public Record Office at Kew, an official department of the government of the United Kingdom, maintains files of Domestic State Papers for the Reign of Queen Jane. These files are calendared in the "Calendar of Letters, Despatches [sic], and State Papers relating to negotiations between England and Spain," Volume XI, edited by Royall Tytler (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1916), pp. 77-93. PhD Historian 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary I of England: An interesting inconsistency

From this article:

"...Mary was in a determined and unforgiving mood, and only five days after Wyatt's arrest, Jane and Guilford were executed. In addition, Mary planned a marital alliance with Spain, and the Spaniards may have insisted on Jane's death to remove a potential threat to Mary's rule. Jane's execution took place on 12 February 1554 at the Tower of London.

And from Mary I of England:

"Originally, Mary was inclined to exercise clemency. She set the Lady Jane Grey free, recognising that the young girl was forced to take the Crown by her father-in-law. The Lady Jane's father, Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk, was also released. Only the Duke of Northumberland did the Queen execute..."

I'm no historian, but... Noting this on Mary:Talk as well. Mashford 04:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See replies at Talk:Mary I of England#Lady Jane Grey: An interesting inconsistency - no sense talking about it in two places at once. Noel (talk) 16:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bibliography

Bibliography states

Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary - anonymous primary source

Can the author include the publishing information for this title? I can't find it anywhere

Though I am not that author of the article, I can tell you that The Chronicle of Queen Jane and Two Years of Queen Mary was published by The Camden Society in London in 1850. It is available in most large research university libraries. To my knowledge it has not been reprinted since that first edition.PhD Historian 09:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing

As per the Edward page, I know of no evidence for Jane and Edward being in love. Unless there is any forthcoming, I will revert the last edit Hackloon 03:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a sentence which seems to have strayed in from a romantic novel. I'd also be interested to know what evidence there is for Edward and Jane falling deeply in love. Jane has been the centre of a lot of sentimental romantic writing, and this looks to have come from that sort of source rather than an historical one. --Andrew Norman 5 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)

religious 'reforms'?

However, Mary was Roman Catholic and looked set to overturn the religious reforms of her brother's short reign.

the wiki for Mary's brother Edward VI of England notes these "reforms": "All official editions of the Bible were accompanied by anti-Catholic annotations. Catholic symbols in churches were desecrated by mobs. Religious dissenters, moreover, were often persecuted and burnt at the stake."

Can we find a more neutral term than "religious reforms"?

I think what I've just done sidesteps the whole "reform" issue (Edward's protestantism was part of the reformation, which is perhaps why that word was used). I've also removed the claim that Jane and Edward fell in love while young (I notice that's been removed from the Edward article too, because nobody could provide evidence). -- ajn (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should Jane be listed as Queen in Succession Box?

Hmm, the article is called Lady Jane Grey & not Jane of England & Ireland (meaning Queen of England & Ireland). I'm not arguing over wether Jane should be listed as Queen or not (Edward VI's succession act says "YES" ,replacing Henry VIII's succession act which said "NO"), it just that, if she's to be listed as a monarch on the succession template, shouln't the article say "Jane of England & Ireland"? GoodDay 15:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the succession box on this Article, as well as the articles on Edward VI & Mary I of England and Ireland, removing Jane's name. I don't argue weither Jane was Queen or not, all I ask is if someone restores Jane's name to the succession box, Please rename the article "Jane of England & Ireland. GoodDay 22:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar vein, if the Succession box has gone, then surely the category Queens Regnant must also go? Ian Cairns 23:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I meant to say I've eliminated the succession box. GoodDay 00:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented (i.e. deleted) the categories English monarchs and Queens regnant. If these categories are reinstated then I think the succession box should also be reinstated. If the succession box remains deleted, then these categories must also go. Ian Cairns 00:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% GoodDay 02:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia naming conventions allow us to use a cognomen which is very well established e.g. Charlemagne, Alfred the Great. They are meant as a way of distinguising sensibly between monarchs and the like with similar names, not a bed of Procrustes. PatGallacher 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but Whittaker's 1986 Almanac lists Lady Jane Grey as Queen, and her reign as 14 days. also, the convention that any law may be overturned by a subsequent law, unless it had beeen entrenched, may have applied, but Henrey's will prevented Edward from having any say over who inherited the crown.

I'm just curious

I'm just curious about a question that this article doesn't answer, if at some point in the future of the British Monarchy there is a female heir named Princess Jane, if she took the throne would she be known as Queen Jane II or just Queen Jane? The Fading Light 3:15, 30 April 2006

This issue is undetermined, i.e. the British Monarchy will cross that bridge when they come to it. My own hunch is that if ever that situation arose then she would become queen under some name other than Jane to avoid this problem. PatGallacher 00:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs for discussion.Richard75 17:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have moved the article back to Lady Jane Grey and merged the two article histories back together. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Jane of England → Lady Jane Grey

Sorry for any confusion caused by the above. Somehow the main article has been moved back to "Jane of England" without consultation or consensus, whilst the talk page is at Lady Jane Grey. I propose to move it back, on the grounds that Jane is not normally recognised as an English monarch and is very rarely called anything but Lady Jane Grey. But we should have a vote. Deb 17:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with four tildes.

Support I remember this case, and it was at Lady Jane Grey. Support Deb's proposal. Gryffindor 17:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; and I'm not convinced she qualified for the infobox's description "Her Majesty Queen Jane". I don't believe anyone in the UK refers to her thus...? David Kernow 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support She was never the de jure monarch and was de facto queen for little more that a week. She is more commonly called Lady Jane Grey than "Jane of England". (Alphaboi867 05:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment This is not a simple choice. Yes Lady Jane Grey should be the main page BUT, this is a cut and past problem. See the historys: [1] "15:31, 6 August 2004 Lord Emsworth (Jane of England moved to Lady Jane Grey)" Page recreated by a cut and past move " 20:02, 3 February 2006" [2]. So this should not be a requested move but a history merge using Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Deb if you agree please withdraw the WP:RM and ask for a cut and past repair --Philip Baird Shearer 09:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the instructions a bit puzzling, Philip. The message that is created is for a speedy deletion. Deb 18:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I'm an admin, so I'll do the cut-and-paste repair myself if there's consensus after a while (and I can work out how to do it!). --ajn (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I couldn't figure out how the talk page had ended up in a different place from the article. Deb 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - From what I can see, on the 3rd of Feb all the text was cut out of Lady Jane Grey by 69.196.93.250, pasted into Jane of England and replaced with a redirect [3]. This partially reversed the situation Lord Emsworth left in August 2004, which was a proper page move from Jane of England to Lady Jane Grey (a page move also moves the associated talk page). It's doubtful whether Jane really was a legitimate monarch - although the official UK monarchy site lists her [4], it says she was a "claimant" and also says Mary was the first Queen Regnant. It makes sense to have the article named LJG rather than JoE --ajn (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"From what I can see, on the 3rd of Feb all the text was cut out of Lady Jane Grey by 69.196.93.250, pasted into Jane of England and replaced with a redirect..."

Sounds to me a good reason to prevent unregistered users from moving pages... David Kernow 18:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Since Talk:Jane of England is redirected here, the template above suggests the move is from Lady Jane Grey to Lady Jane Grey. David Kernow 22:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected this page as an anon editor who has then apparently registered under several user names has persisted in his/her edits and page moves.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portraiture

For a long time, a portrait at the National Portrait Gallery was thought to be of Jane; about ten years ago, it was shown to be of Catherine Parr. It's generally held that there's no reliably known life painting of her.

I've stumbled across some interesting recent work on a painting in the Fitzwilliam at Cambridge has suggested it may well be of Jane, though - it was previously attributed as Mary I, but the evidence for Jane is if anything stronger. It's not conclusive - this sort of thing never can be - but the ages match, the types of clothing and jewellery match, the iconography works... it's an interesting, and well-reasoned, article. Might be worth mentioning in passing here. [5] Shimgray | talk | 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using An Image Without Permission

My name is Sonja Marie, and I'm not very happy!

While I think this page is great, I'm not happy that an image, and the text about it, from my website, The Lady Jane Grey Internet Museum: http://www.bitterwisdom.com/ladyjanegrey/, has been used on this site without my permission and the image link from my site was also put instead of the page that it appears on. The image is "Lady Jane Grey Preparing For Execution".

I have emailed Wikipedia support about the image, text and link being used and I hope it will be removed either by them or the editor of this section. Thank you! - SonjaMarie 07:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little confusing; we don't seem to have any such picture in this article. The painting so titled on your website seems to be by George Whiting Flagg and painted in 1835, and doesn't appear in this article. - Nunh-huh 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. On this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Jane_Grey under "Lady Jane Grey in culture" there's a link "Lady Jane Grey Preparing for Execution", that when clicked on goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Jane_Grey_Preparing_for_Execution_%28painting%29 and it's the picture on the right and the text ""I have changed the name of my picture to Lady Jane Gray [sic]. I find that Mary was too old at the time of her exicution [sic] to make an interesting picture."" that was taken from my site. Does that help? Sonja Marie (P.S when you click on edit, it does say the image doesn't seem to appear on the site yet). SonjaMarie 07:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~) which will be converted to a link to your user page when the page is saved. So you are referring not to this article, but to Lady Jane Grey Preparing for Execution (painting). The words in question appear to be those of the painter, and not yours. Clearly we would immediately remove any text in which you held the copyright, or any image in which you held a copyright. And I think we could easily remove the link to your site if you wish. The image is definitely here, by the way: if it's not loading on your computer it may be a memory or caching issue. If the problem is use of an image (and words) which are in the public domain, I think we'll have to see what the folks upstairs have to say! - Nunh-huh 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that, but the particular image showing on this site that is used from mine is from the personal collection of Inga Walton who has let me use it on my website, she also did the research and found the text regarding it. Neither the image or the text appears anywhere else online. I'd be willing to "donate" an image of Jane preparing for her execution from my own personal collection and that is now in public domain due to the lapse of copyright. SonjaMarie 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we're into territory that is "group-think" here on Wikipedia. I see no reason not to do as you suggest, but the image is on Commons rather than in Wikipedia proper, and so it isn't anything I can do myself. One way to procede would be to ask your question at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (something like "I would like to have an image that was downloaded from my website deleted from Commons. How is that done?"); but it might be simpler if you just wait for the folk you wrote to to get back to you. - Nunh-huh 08:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is over 100 years old. I don't believe any copyright is held on the image by anybody. As the image is apparently in the public domain, what is the basis for your objection? Are we wrong that it is in the public domain?--A Y Arktos\^talk 08:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe she is requesting the deletion as a courtesy, not as a matter of copyright. _ Nunh-huh 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, the painting is public domain. But the scan is not. See my comment presently at the end of this section. Ehurtley 07:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my main complaints are that the full picture my friend provided for my use was taken from my site for use here, that the text from the research my friend did was also used, and that the hyperlink to the one on my site is used as well, when people click on that it uses bandwidth from my site which I pay for, and I'd rather that if this image does remain that the page it appears on is linked instead. I do my website for the enjoyment of others, I do the research, buy books, prints, etc (some very old), scan images and much more and I guess when I see my "work" or in some cases my property used without permssion I get very upset. This section is a great resource for those wanting to learn about Jane and I'd be happy to contribute, but when it comes to stuff from my own site, I would just like to be asked you know? SonjaMarie 08:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing we can control now is the link, which I think I've just done for you. It's unfortunate that the picture's on Commons, because it really does make the whole thing more complex. If you wrote to the office or User talk:Jimbo Wales you will probably get a more satisfactory answer from them. - Nunh-huh 09:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think a complaint to the office or Jimbo would get anywhere, though. Both the picture and the quote are out of copyright, and they are therefore fair game and other people (including Wikipedia) can reuse them. I'm assuming that Inga Walton has scanned the image out of a book, or maybe photographed the original painting (it's not in the collection's online catalogue yet [6], though they are digitising their collection and don't seem to be claiming copyright on the digital images of Flagg's other paintings). Publishing research means people can reuse your research, if you don't want it to be reused then don't publish it. --ajn (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, the image of the Flagg painting which Sonja Marie has posted on her site in indeed copyrighted. Teh copyright is held by the painting's owner, the New York Historical Society. Therefore its use on Wikipedia is a violation of copyright laws.66.74.98.207 09:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt that that's the case. Ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, artwork, audio or video record does not give the possessor the copyright. A museum owning a unique original painting of Van Gogh, or an individual buying the latest Madonna CD (edited in millions of copies) are exactly in the same situation: transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright. - Nunh-huh 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see the basis for that claim of copyright - the painting was done by someone who died 109 years ago, which means the painting itself is well out of US copyright protection. Wikipedia:Public domain image resources says that accurate pictures of artworks can only remain in copyright for as long as the artwork itself is in copyright, and although it doesn't give a source for that, this page] does (section "Photographer's Copyright on artwork reproductions") - Bridgeman Art Library vs Corel Corp, in the USA. So even if the digital image was scanned from a book, or from a photo taken by an employee of the museum, there's no copyright in the original image or the digital image. It would be different if it was a creative work derived from the original image, but straight copies of the whole picture do not constitute creative work. --ajn (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the above writers, I must disagree. In my own extensive work with images of works of art held in collections of persons or organizations other than the creator of the work, I have repeatedly found that the right to reproduce images of that work is held by the person or organization with ownership of the work, regardless of the age of the work. The owner, whether an individual or an organization, may choose however NOT to exercise those rights. Many public institutions, such as the New York Historical Society, indeed do not exercise their copyright. Others do, and do so very strictly and aggressively. But to say that because a work of art is "X" number of years old or that it is owned by someone other than its creator, and therefore it is not covered by copyright laws is erroneous. One of the big problems with "sources" like Wikipedia, which are created by public contributors and are essentially beyond any real authoritative control over content, is that much of the content is "lifted" from copyrighted sources and posted on Wikipedia in violation of copyright laws. The only way to know that a particular piece has been "lifted" is when someone points it out. Why any article submitter or editor would hesitate to courteously obey any polite request to cease using protected mateiral is beyond me.PhD Historian 10:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the tenor of your last statement, I think you will find that those organizations which assert that they have ownership of a "right to reproduce images" of a work which they own (rather than one which they produced) are asserting rights they wish they had rather than rights they actually do have. There's no copyright left to own in an 19th century artwork. - Nunh-huh 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the assertion that copyrights are held by the owner of the material object? That seems to flatly contradict 17 US 202: "Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object." Once a copyright has expired, the work, as distinguished from the material object in which the work is embodied, passes into the public domain. --Gnosticdogma 15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot quote a statute law, but I can cite examples of materials that are still apparently under full copyright protection despite having passed to later owners. First, I would direct you to the website of the National Portrait Gallery (London). Try looking up the Jane Grey/Catherine Parr painting (NPG4451). Next to the image you will note a copyright emblem and the abbreviation NPG. That suggests to me that the NPG is claiming, rightly or wrongly, to have the right to restrict reproduction of that image. That claim is supported by book publishers. No reputable book publisher will reproduce that image without first obtaining written permission from the NPG and paying any required fee. This process may be simply the observance of a "gentlemen's agreement" rather than of statute law, as Nunh-huh has in effect suggested. I am an historian, not a lawyer, so I don't know the law. But I do know the process required by every publisher before publishing images: permission to use must be obtained and paid for. That suggests to me that some law probably exists, because believe me, no modern publisher will spend one penny more than required to get a book to market. Profit margins are just too thin. As a second (and uniquely American) example, The songs of Elvis Presley. Elvis has been dead for 30 years, but his songs (those he wrote himself) cannot be recorded by other artists without paying a fee to his estate. His estate and assigns own the copyright for songs that were written as much as 45 years ago. That suggests to me that artistic creations do not automatically enter the public domain upon the death of their creator, nor do they do so after the 27 years stated in law if an heir, estate, or assign continues to claim copyright.PhD Historian 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis is an interesting example. Duration of copyright is closer to 70 years after death than 27 (depending on date of first publication and whether renewals were made). A useful web reference is this page on when works enter the public domain (under U.S. law). Even though Congress has extended the duration of copyright several times, there's absolutely no way that anything from the 19th century could possibly be under copyright. - Nunh-huh 02:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia it would seem that the state libraries are fond of claiming "reproduction rights" and not being entirely candid about copyright. There are apparently no such things as "reproduction rights" in Australian law unassociated with copyright - I am unaware that reproduction rights exist elsewhere either - the way to control such rights is not to publish, don't allow photography in the gallery and sell the right to take a photo. There are some cases where copyright goes beyond a particular time - the most famous one to my mind is Peter Pan#Copyright status. The painting is by an American and it is apparently held in America. I will assume that the website is American (.com). Thus we are talking only United States copyright law. There is nothing to indicate in the Wikipedia article that this reproduction of a 19th century painting is not in the public domain, notwithstanding the comments immediately above about Elvis Presley's songs, .... --A Y Arktos\^talk 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point about the distinction between true legal copyright and claims to reproduction rights. Whether the New York Historical Society ever claims either copyright or reproduction rights on the Flagg painting, I do not know. But under American law, they can claim full legal copyright simply by making application and paying the fee ($65 US), IF and only if no other party also claims the right (see Nunh-huh above) AND IF the object in question has not already been declared legally to be in the public domain. I believe that the New York Historical Society (owner of the painting in question) operates under the philosophy that it is guardian of a public trust and therefore does not assert copyright privileges. However, for any of us to assume so without first simply asking them seems foolish. Would they object to the image being used on Wikipedia? Perhaps not. Is Wikipedia violating any copyright law by using the image without written consent? We need to ask a copyright lawyer. But shouldn't an involved debate on copyrights be carried on under the "Talk" page for "Copyright" rather than Lady Jane Grey? We seem to have strayed rather far from the central topic.... PhD Historian 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In research I have come across quite a few old items where holders of a 19th century image, document, etc insist in the 21st century that they own the copyright. I have yet to come across a case where, to put it bluntly, they were not bullshitting. It seems a standard ploy. Claim copyright to protect your ability to get people to pay into the gallery, library, etc, or to say to someone "pay me and you can use it." Legal experts on copyright law have burst out laughing at the claims, calling them, in one case I can think of, a "money making stunt that is a phoney as a three dollar bill". One organisation was particularly ruthless in claiming copyright and reproduction rights, to an organisation I was working with. The legal advice, from someone who became a senior judge shortly afterwards, was that those making the claim hadn't a leg to stand on. So we called their bluff. When they threatened to get an injunction, our response was "go ahead". They gave us "24 hours to desist, or else." We said "sue us." We got a letter delivered by courier saying that they would go to court that afternoon if we did not back down. Again we said "go ahead". We never heard from them again. It had been a bluff all along, with most people, faced with their threats, backing down. But if you didn't they became as quiet as door mice. (Another ploy was to at the last minute "offer" use of the image for free — ie, we ain't going to court with this. So we'll back down this way. Again when declined, amid threats, the so-called copyright owner then promptly disappeared, could not be reached by phone, and none of the "certain" legal actions ever happened (exactly as the copyright lawyers had insisted would be the case). BTW Wikipedia does have copyright advice from lawyers. And I want to stress I am not talking about the person here or insinuating anything about her statements or anyone else mentioned here on the page, just my experience in general about companies, art galleries, libraries, etc who seem to pull the "we own copyright and reproduction rights" stunt all the time. As my own lawyer as a writer who deals with contracts and copyright says "the fact is they do not. They just pretend to." FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 00:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

PhD Historian, I believe you are wrong on both counts (at least in the United States). The ownership of a copyright vests with the author of a work (or the employer if it was a work for hire). Ownership may subsequently be conveyed, bequethed, or otherwise transfered by operation of law, but it can never be created in a non-author simply by regisration. Works also do not need to be legally declared to be in the public domain. It is the copyright owner's reponsibility to enforce his or her rights. If no copyright exists, because it lapsed or was waived, no action can be brought against those who would reproduce the work. The copyright for this work lapsed a long time ago. --Gnosticdogma 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should just stick to the field I know best (Tudor History and Jane Grey) and not try to expound on a field I don't know much about (modern American copyright law)? LOL All I know about it is what I have learned from American and British book publishers, most of whom refuse to publish an image without written permission of the current owner of the original artwork. PhD Historian 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to continue a long dead argument but I must contribute here. I was absolutely disgusted at the way certain individulas dealt with Sonja Marie's request that you remove an article that she's paying for on her website from wikipedia. Sonja Marie's reqest was in my opinion very simple and it is out of courtesy to her friend and to her that she asked you to remove it. You wouldn't steal a picture that someone had given afriend of yours and use it in your own private collectyion of pictures in real life would you? In that case, I hope that you will show a lot more courtesy in future and when somebody asks a perfectly reasonable request then I suggest that you do all you can to ensure that somebody is not offended. If you can't do this perhaps you should not be apart of the wiki cicle at all. Further, I hope that when somebody requests something so simple and obvious in future, that you will not find it neccessary to debate the matter until the matter is no longer a matter relating to wikipedia. I was disgusted and i'd like very much to outline how rude it was of all those who dithered when giving back that woman's picture. In fact, have you even done that? terrible! absolutely disgusting and shameful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.11.253.89 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006.

I believe that the picture has not been removed, nor, probably, will it be. I don't think the situation was simple or obvious at all. I'm still not sure what Sonja Marie wants (or wanted); the digital copy of George Whiting Flagg's painting is not owned by her or her friend. Gnosticdogma 21:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Gnosticdogma - not "Sonja Marie's" picture - that is what copyright law is all about. The image is now in the public domain. Don't want to share it, don't publish. It was not "stolen" and it is rude to infer that it is.--Arktos ^talk 01:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my (late) two cents... While the original painting may be long out of any conceivable copyright, what about the scan? If I go take a photograph of a statue in Rome, the statue itself may be public domain, but my photograph of it is not. Does a scan equal a photograph in this regard? For example, some museums forbid photography in their grounds. If a piece of now-public-domain artwork is first revealed in such a museum (say a new Van Gogh that had been in the museum basement since it was painted,) then there is no legal means for getting an image of that painting other than to purchase one from the museum. And that image, produced by the museum, would be covered under copyright, even though the original painting is public domain. Now, with more 'minor' paintings, there may be old photographs or other copies of it around that are now public domain, but a newer more detailed image of it would only be possible with the permission of the museum. And if the museum insists on owning the copyright on that photograph, well, you have no choice. Likewise, just because an old painting is shown in a book doesn't give us the right to scan it out of that book. The book itself is under copyright, and thusly, all images in it are under copyright. I can fully understand that people are arguing that the painting is public domain. But the person who made that image of the painting still retains copyright over their image of it. (To make it even more confusing, if the original work of art being photographed is still under copyright, even the photographer needs permission to publish it. So, for example, I have a friend who is an artist. She retains the copyright on her paintings. If I take a photograph of her painting, I retain the copyright on my photograph, but since the subject of the photograph itself is protected under copyright, if I wanted to sell my photograph, I would need to get her permission, too. The subject of the photograph, and the photograph itself, are covered separately, although inter-relatedly.) So, if we conclude that a scan is the same as a photograph, then Sonja Marie has valid issue. THAT digital image of the painting IS indeed owned by whoever took the photograph (or made the scan.) I say remove the image, or find another source. Obviously, Sonja Marie's friend found it somewhere, so someone else should be able to find it in a source that we can acquire permission from. Ehurtley 07:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehurtley, if a reprodution, photograph or otherwise, is indistinquishable from the artwork it depicts, the reproduction cannot be protected by copyright because it lacks originality. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). If a painting is in the public domain, exact photographic replicas of that painting are also in the public domain. Gnosticdogma 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward's will question

Accroding to the article "...Edward, as a minor, had not legally reached an age where he could make a will." The question I have is this: how old need he be to have an enforceable will? He was 16 at the time of his death, so how much longer need he have lived for his will to be valid? Thanks. 206.156.242.36 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question in simplest terms, in order for a male to make a will under English common law in the sixteenth century, he had to be at least 21 years of age (see Ilana Krausman Ben-Amos, "Adolescence and Youth in Early Modern England," p. 36). Edward, born in October 1537, was at his death 4 months short of his sixteenth birthday, making him more than 5 years too young to create a legal will under "normal" English common law. However, Edward was an anointed monarch. Exceptions were made for monarchs, who were thought by some not to be subject to common law in the usual sense (monarchs were subject to Parliamentary statute law only, according to some sixteenth century legalists, and "legal age" was not at that time yet addressed in Parliamentary statute law). There was ample English and European historical precedent for declaring a monarch legally "of age" when he or she reached their sixteenth birthday. There were those who thought that Edward was "close enough" to sixteen to publish a legal will (see W.K. Jordan, "Edward VI," in 2 volumes). The real legal question at the time, however, was not whether Edward was old enough to make a will, but whether he had the right to cede the crown by will in contravention of the Parliamentary Act of Succession of 1543. That Act specifically named Mary as heir to the crown if Edward should die without issue, withe Elizabeth following Mary. Could Edward set aside the terms of that Act through the power of his own will? In light of the events of early July 1553, some authorities and officials thought he could. Others thought not. The "not" faction won, and subsequent acts of Parliament have since clarified that the crown cannot be passed at the sole will of the monarch, but is instead subject to Parliamentary consent.PhD Historian 22:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful and thorough explanation. Thank you. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Excellent explanation, PhD Historian, thank you. So it seems that even at the time the opinion was split between "can" can "cannot" for the monarch to issue succession. Had you have said that undoubtedly Edward had the right, I would then consider all monarchs since that time to be illegitimate, but since the "not" faction won we can only go with what history has left us. It’s a shame, really, I wonder what kind of Queen Jane would have been…and we know what kind Mary was. 206.156.242.36 13:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the opinion was at the time "split." Recall, for example, the pressure placed on Elizabeth at the end of reign to name an heir. The Privy Council at that time were inclined to cede to Elizabeth the prerogative to grant the crown by will, rather than having Parliament debate the issue. In the end James of Scotland succeeded not so much because Elizabeth or Parliament chose him, but because he was the legitimate male heir-in-blood. He was subsequently confirmed by Parliament. But the right or power of Parliament to decide who would or would not wear the crown was really solidified, in constitutional terms, in the late eighteenth century with three events: the Restoration of Charles II in 1660, the deposition of James II and accession of William III and Mary II in 1688, and the Act of Settlement of 1701. The sixteenth-century attempt to set aside Mary and Elizabeth in favor of Jane was simply the beginning of a constitutional process that was not fully resolved until the relatively peaceful Hanoverian accession of George I in 1715 under the terms of the Act of Settlement of 1701. John Dudley and Edward VI instigated a constitutional debate that took 150 years to settle definitively. PhD Historian 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations

I'd like to make a couple of comments about the illustrations that accompany this article. The upper-most illustration is captioned "probably derived from a portrait, subsequently lost, by Hans Holbein." Though it is not impossible for Hans Holbein to have painted a portrait of Jane Grey, it is very unlikely that he did so. Hans Holbien the Younger died in November 1543. Jane Grey was at that time barely six years old. Any Holbein portrait would necessarily have been done some time before November 1543, so that Jane would have been little more than 5 years old. If Jane had indeed been depicted in an individual portrait (rather than as one person in a family portrait) at such a young age and by an artist of such eminence as Holbein, it would have been a virtually unique event in sixteenth-century English female portraiture. That kind of expenditure was not lavished on female children of such young age in that era, regardless of their social prominence. Female portraits were ususally first occassioned by the girl/woman's marriage. Even Princess Elizabeth, a girl of higher social station than Jane Grey, is not known to have had her portrait painted before she was thirteen years old (and therefore becoming marriageable). In all likelihood, the van de Passe image is either a product of the artist's imagination, or another example of the many incorrect identifications that were so very common in the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries. Whichever the case may be, the portrait is undoubtedly not a copy of a "lost" Hans Holbein portrait of a 5-year-old Jane Grey. The second image is that of a young woman holding a book. The caption correctly states that the image is "sometimes claimed to depict Lady Jane Grey." And while it may, like the van de Passe, be the product of an artist's imagining of what Jane might have looked like, it is almost certainly not an authentic depiction of her. The costume worn by the sitter, especially the headgear and the kerchief around her shoulders, suggest Dutch or German influence. They are inappropriate for a girl or woman of the English aristocracy during the early 1550s. Also, the absence of ornamentation and jewelry in the costume suggests a woman of much lower social station than Jane Grey. This portrait is almost certainly of some person other than Jane Grey or, at best, a posthumous rendering drawn from a late-sixteenth-century artist's imagining of what he thought Jane Grey should have looked like. In my opinion, neither of these illustrations are of Jane Grey, but are instead cases of mistaken identity, with the incorrect identification having occurred long ago and simply been perpetuated without examination. PhD Historian 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Succession of 1544? or 1543?

May I just point out that the date attached to the Act of Succession mentioned in this article is incorrect? The relevant Act of Succession, 35 Henry VIII c.1, dates to 1543, not 1544. See "Statutes of the Realm" (London: Dawsons, 1810 and 1963), volume 3, pages 955-958. The Act was passed in the thirty-fifth year of Henry's reign (April 1509 - January 1547), but reigns began at Year 1, not Year 0. Thus an act passed 6 months after Henry's accession, in 1509, would be styled "1 Henry." Any act styled "35 Henry" was therefore passed at some point after the thirty-fourth but before the thirty-fifth anniverary of his accession (i.e. during the thirty-fifth year, or between 22 April 1543 and 21 April 1544). The Act of Succession referred to in this article was passed during the summer of 1543, which was indeed during the thirty-fifth year of the reign (April 1543 - April 1544) but before the thirty-fifth annivesary of the accession (April 1544). An individual's age was calculated in a similar manner. Though born in June 1491, Henry at his accession in April 1509 was said to be "in his eighteenth year," yet he did not reach his eighteenth birthday until 2 months later ... at which point he was then "in his nineteenth year." This pre-modern method for reckoning ages helps to explain why modern historians are so often confused about the age at which Jane Grey was executed. In sixteenth-century terms, she was "in her seventeenth year," though by modern terms she was sixteen years and four or five months old. PhD Historian 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather convoluted - we seem to have had one article for the 1533 Act (25 Hen.8 c.22 - the one which legitimised Elizabeth and bastardised Mary), and then had everyone link to that for all four Acts of Succession. I've moved that Act to its formal short title (Succession to the Crown Act 1533 ) and will try to sort out all the redirects now - could you glance over these Acts and check we've got the four correctly sorted out? Shimgray | talk | 00:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After lots of chopping-and-changing... tada! First Succession Act; Second Succession Act; Third Succession Act. (I used this form to avoid giving the dates - it's the titles that Tanner's Tudor Constitutional Documents gives them) Shimgray | talk | 01:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, they appear to me to be correct. Thank you for sorting that out. PhD Historian 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Edits

I have taken the liberty of making a substantial number of changes to this article. Hopefully these changes will not aggravate or infuriate too many people. The changes made are intended to bring the article into conformity with the archival evidence, and to eliminate many of the more fictional elements that have crept into the history of Jane Grey over the preceding 450 years. I realize that many people are very vested in the "reality" they have "learned" from the fictional and semi-fictional accounts of Jane Grey's life, as well as from the writings of non-professional and untrained "historians" like Hester Chapman, Mary Luke, Alison Plowden, and Faith Cook. If any of the changes that I have made disturb anyone, please first read my user page, then contact me or post a note on this discussion page and I will be happy to provide the documentary and archival basis for the change. PhD Historian 01:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guilford or Guildford?

Mexicari and Mkoyle seem to have initiated a minor controversy over the spelling of Jane's husband's name without citing their individual sources or entering a note on this discussion page, so I will start the discussion thread myself. Mexicari seems to favor the spelling Guilford. MKoyle favors Guildford. Both are correct, and both are incorrect. Spelling in the sixteenth century was not standardized. An individual was free to spell his or her name in any way he or she chose to do so. Their contemporaries often referred to those individuals using some other idiosyncratic spelling. In the case of Guilford/Guildford Dudley, the martyrologist John Foxe spelled his name "Gylford" in the 1563 edition of "Actes and Monuments" (p.923). For my own part, I generally refer to individuals using whatever spelling they themsleves preferred. Thus I refer to Henry VIII's last queen as "Kateryn Parr," since that is the spelling she consistently used when signing her own name. In Guilford/Guildford's case, I am aware of only one surviving example of his signature. It is contained in the British Library Harley Manuscript 2342, Lady Jane Grey's prayerbook. Guildford wrote along the bottom margin of two pages an inscription addressed to Jane's father which he signed only "G. Duddeley." His use of the initial of the first name does not help us to clarify the issue. Note, however, his own spelling of the last name. Jane used the same spelling of "Duddeley" in both the prayerbook and other documents. Yet today it is usually spelled "Dudley." The legal documents of Guildford's trial (National Archives Public Record Office King's Bench 8/23) are also not helpful since they are in Latin and use Latinized spellings and abbreviated forms of first names (e.g. Rob't, Tho., Wllm.). The source of Guildford's name is helpful, however. He was given as his Christian name his mother's maiden name. Guildford's mother was Jane Guildford Dudley, daughter of Sir Edward Guildford (d. 1534) of Kent. That family fairly consistently signed its last name with the inclusion of the "d": GuilDford. Thus I would argue that the "correct" spelling of Jane's husband's name should match that of his mother's family for which he was named: Guildford. PhD Historian 02:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Jane" engraved in Beauchamp Tower window ledge

I just removed yet another insertion of fictional material in this article, this time a paragraph with a tale about Jane and Guildford just prior to their executions. Though the story, involving Queen Mary being "touched" by a purported request from Guildford to be allowed to visit Jane and Jane waving to Guildford as he went to his exeuction, is a popular one among novelists and playwrights, it has absolutely no support in the historical record. The anonymous contributor also mentioned the fact that the name Jane is engraved or carved into the soft stone wall of one of the rooms of the Tower. The contributor stated that the carving was "probably" done by Guildford Dudley while he was imprisoned. There are indeed at least two places in the second floor chamber of the Beauchamp Tower where the name Jane (spelled "IANE") is carved into the stonework, especially a window embrasure. And while it is intriguing to suppose that Guildford did the carving as a tribute to his wife, such a supposition cannot at all be sustained with any certainty. That particular room is literally covered in carved names, phrases, coats of arms, and other markings. The room was used to house untold numbers of prisoners over the years, and carving was a popular pastime for many of those prisoners. They carved not only their own names, but also the names of relatives and friends. And Jane was a VERY common name in the early modern era. John Dudley's wife (Guildford's mother) was named Jane, for example. So one could as easily suggest that John Dudley did the carving in tribute to his own wife. It is equally as likely that some other prisoner carved the names in tribute to their own wife or daughter or girlfriend or mistress named Jane. The probability that the carving was done by Guildford is therefore exceedingly small, though it is not impossible. So we can say "maybe" or "perhaps," but not "probably." PhD Historian 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life and Education

I am glad that someone caught the earlier deletion of the section on Jane Grey's early life and education. However, the current version that has been re-inserted contains a number of factual errors. I am reluctant to edit the section myself, since editing battles sometimes develop over documented facts that contradict popular myth. I am instead simply going to offer here my observations and the documentary evidence that supports them and let others do the actual editing, if they so decide. First, on Jane's date of birth: she certainly was not born on 12 October 1537, nor even in October. According to a letter in the Calendar of State Papers for Henry VIII, dated 13 October, Frances Brandon was visting the Archbishop of Canterbury during early October, and had been there "all summer." Additional evidence from the CSP and other sources actually suggests that Jane was born perhaps as early as May but not later than July 1537. A paper presenting the full evidence and argument for this earlier date is forthcoming in Oxford University's "Notes and Queries" journal. Secondly, Jane and Edward were not "companions." They were acquainted, certainly, and they were occassionally in each others' presence for brief periods. But any assertion that they spent more than a few isolated weeks together is wholly unsupported by the documentary evidence. In his own diary, Edward mentions Jane only two or three times: once in connection to a marriage prospect and once in realtion with a state visit by the regent of Scotland. As for his calling her a "pretty rose," this is certainly the product of fiction, unless someone can cite a sixteenth-century document to that effect. I have thus far found no such reference during the last 4 years of archival research on Jane Grey. Lastly, the idea that Jane's parents "mistreated" her is an anachronistic modern interpretation of sixteenth-century behavior. By the standards of her own day, Jane was treated quite appropriately, even leniently. Virtually all childrearing manuals of the early- and mid-sixteenth century counsel parents not to hesitate to beat their children, and even offer explicit instructions on how best to do so. "Mistreated" is thus a biased modern assessment, inconsistent with the sixteenth-century context. Jane was well educated in comparison to the "average" woman of the sixteenth century, as the section indicates. She did know Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Among modern languages, however, there is direct evidence for only one: Italian. She may have known French as well, since it was the courtly language and the majority of nobles knew at least some French. But there is no evidence that she knew "several" (i.e., more than two) modern languages. So much myth and romantic fiction has developed around Jane Grey that it is now exceedingly difficult to separate fact from fancy. PhD Historian 22:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've toned it down. --ajn (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Christmas Day, but I'm going to do this anyway. In regard to PatGallacher's edit of the Education section: Yes, the reference to Frances' having beaten Jane into submission on the marriage to Guildford is, in this instance, probably derived from the movie. There is, however, a late-sixteenth-century Italian source that describes her father beating her on the same occassion. That author was not an eye-witness, did not indicate he had heard it from an eye-witness, and was not even living in England at the time. So the story is not easily supported. As to the rest of that small section: Yes, Seymour attempted to arrange a marriage betwen Jane and Edward VI. However, there is no evidence that Edward was even aware of Seymour's plan. Edward's own diary/journal, for example, does not mention Jane Grey prior to 1551, two years after Seymour was dead. Certainly Edward knew Jane well, but there is no evidence to support an assertion that he personally rejected her. One can only say that Seymour was unsuccessful in his attempt, full stop. Frances Grey did not offer Jane to anyone; women did not make marriage arrangements in the 1550s. John Dudley actually initiated and arranged the marriage, and negotiated with Henry (not Frances). Jane perhaps did protest the marriage, but the reasons were far more complex than a supposed hatred (unlikely and anachronistic) of her prospective father-in-law. There is no evidence that Frances found Jane "surprisingly difficult to handle." But there is evidence that (again) her father found her too willful and self-assertive. Nor was Jane "married off in a hurry." The marriage was negotiated in late March and early April 1553, the banns required by the Edwardian Protestant church were posted in late April, full celebrations were planned and mounted, and the wedding did not occur until at least 21 May 1553. All of this is supported by primary source archival documents. Two months from initiation to completion may be a "hurry" to modern wedding planners, but by sixteenth-century standards Jane's marriage timetable was relatively normal. See why I think this whole article needs a re-write? PhD Historian 21:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK...I have no expertise or authority on the life of Jane Grey Dudley, but I felt the need to point out that there is a discrepancy in the asserted order of birth for Guilford Dudley between what is listed in this section and the article on Guilford Dudley himself. Was Dudley the eldest and heir to John Dudley? Or was he a younger son? I don't have the answer, but thought I would highlight the inconsistency for one for the experts to resolve. User:eewells 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out another of the issues with this article. Guildford Dudley was not his father's heir, at least not in the sense that he would have inherited the Northumberland title and its associated estates and revenues upon his father's natural death. Northumberland's heir in that regard was his first son, also named John Dudley (b. ca. 1527, d. 1554). The elder Dudley's other sons included Ambrose (b. before 1530), Henry (b. ca. 1531), Robert (b. 1532/3). Guildford was the last born (ca. 1535) and therefore fifth of Northumberland's surviving sons. I have edited the article accordingly. PhD Historian 08:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's date of birth

I seem to remember reading Jane's probable date of birth is around November 1537. The box at the top of this article says September-October 1537. However a user is now claiming it was early 1537. This has implications for the accuracy of the film Lady Jane (film) (and possibly other treatments): was she 15 or 16 at the time of her marriage and brief reign? PatGallacher 09:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "accuracy" of the film "Lady Jane"? That film, like so many "Hollywood" treatments of historical figures, is an absolute nightmare for those of us who teach history in universities. Students seem to assume that films dealing with real people are always meticulously accurate, a phenomenon I simply do not understand. The writers, Chris Bryant and David Edgar, and the director, Trevor Nunn, took so many liberties with Jane Grey that it makes my skin crawl. Without going into a really lengthy discussion of the huge number of inaccuracies and outright fabrications (the entire last half!), let me just say that the film has very little resemblance to "historical reality" evidenced by the primary source documents of the period. I'd be happy to provide a lengthy and detailed list of "issues" in that film if anyone requests, but be warned that it would be quite long. Like "Elizabeth" and "Shakespeare in Love" and so many others, the film is good for mindless entertainment, but should never be taken as historically accurate. As for Jane having been born in November, that is unlikely in the extreme. The article forthcoming in Oxford University's "Notes and Queries" addresses that point as well. Jane could have been born in November only if her mother violated every social convention of the day regarding pregnancy and childbirth, a thing the king's niece is exceedingly unlikely to have done. The "user" (myself) has an academic biography of Jane Grey coming out in late 2007 that will challenge most of what is "known" about Jane Grey, including her age at her marriage, reign and death. According to my extensive research in the primary source archives, Jane was married within weeks of her 16th birthday, was proclaimed queen shortly after that birthday, and was executed at the age of 16 years and 8 or more months. Once the article on her age goes into print with "Notes and Queries," I will post it on my own website and will place a hyperlink in this article so that those accessing Wikipedia can view the evidence for themselves. PhD Historian 22:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add material to the "Lady Jane" article if you want. If I understand you correctly, the conventional wisdom is that Jane was 15 at the time of her marriage and brief reign, but you are arguing that she was actually 16. Curiously, this is one issue where "Lady Jane" may have been accurate after all, since it has been suggested that it inaccurately raised Jane's age from 15 to 16 at this time. PatGallacher 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "traitor-heroine of the Reformation"[citation needed] died at the age of 16 years. (Section: Execution, 3rd graf)

Google produces only 12 results (as of 11/2006) for "traitor-heroine of the Reformation", and all appear to be direct citations of this Wikipedia article, or closely derived therefrom. Hence it appears that any quest for citation will result in a circular reference, and that the contributor who first entered that quoted moniker for Jane Grey invented it. Hence it should be removed and the sentence reworded to preserve any relevant details (e.g. age at death). If it were really from a literary source, it would appear somewhere, anywhere, quoted and propogated by Tudor historians as a legitimate description of Jane Grey. I choose not to edit it but add this so that someone more proficient in Tudor history can make the edit.

If I may, as someone perhaps "more proficient in Tudor history" than the unsigned poster of the above, respond. The quotation is from the famous Tudor historian A.F. Pollard (d. 1948). It appeared in his volume on Henry VIII's successors entitled "From the accession of Edward VI to the death of Elizabeth," volume 6 of "The Political History of England," 12 vols., ed. Reginald Poole (London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1905), p. 111. Pollard's full original sentence is, "No queen was worthier of the crown than this usurper, no medieval saint more saintly than the traitor-heroine of the reformation." PhD Historian 10:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, as someone perhaps with a little more class than the signed poster of the reply above, respond. The descriptor "traitor-heroine of the Reformation" is quoted in the article. It is a fact that Google returns zero non-Wikipedia-derived results for this term. Evidently you would rather be pedantic than helpful. Perhaps your highness would deign to properly footnote this lovely quoted moniker in the article so the rest of the world might share in your copious, albeit exceptionally obscure, knowledge. If not, then why is this phrase present, and quoted, without attribution? Mwah.

My sincere apologies to Mwah. I was unaware of any Wikipedia rule stating that if a term or text cannot be found by an effortless Google search, it must necessarily be "exceptionally obscure." Silly me, I still prefer traveling to old fashioned libraries and searching actual printed reference books rather than Google searches. That probably makes me a dinosaur. And as a self-identified dinosaur, I lack the techno-skills required to create footnotes in a Wikipedia article. Since I expended the energy to locate the obscure source of the "moniker," perhaps Mwah could also expend a little productive energy by turning the at-hand information into a footnote that meets Wikipedia's formatting standards? And he/she won't even have to get out of his/her chair to do it!PhD Historian 07:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I know this article's been through the mill with naming conventions, but I'm just wondering... wouldn't her proper title at the time of her death have been Lady Guildford Dudley? Why is she only known to history as Lady Jane Grey? Just curious.. TysK 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a very valid question. Her "proper" title was, at her death, "Lady Jane Dudley." And she signed her own name as "Lady Jane Dudley" in the very few examples from after her marriage that have survived. The practice of a wife taking the husband's name in those cases where the husband's title was a courtesy title (e.g. Lord Guildford Dudley) was seldom if ever seen in the sixteenth century. In fact, I have never encountered it in my own research. It would seem to be incorrect, in sixteenth-century terms, ever to style her as "Lady Guildford Dudley." But why is she known to history as "Lady Jane Grey" rather than as "Lady Jane Dudley"? This is almost certainly due to the adoption of the practice by her earliest publishers and biographers. Within months of her death, two London printers (John Day and Anthony Scoloker) published small volumes containing some of Jane's letters, her debate with John de Feckenham, and her scaffold speech. The volumes gave her name as "Lady Jane Grey," not "Dudley." Likewise her earliest biographer and former Italian tutor, Michelangelo Florio, referred to her as "Lady Jane Grey" in his "Historia de la vita e de la morte d'Illustrissima Giovanna Graia" (written before 1570 but not published until 1607). Even John Fox referred to her as "Lady Jane Grey" in his first edition of "Acts and Monuments" (1563). These publishers and writers perhaps styled Jane by her maiden name to distinguish her from her mother-in-law, the Duchess of Northumberland, who was also styled "Lady Jane Dudley." Lastly, it is somewhat anachronistic to assume that modern naming conventions also appertained in the sixteenth century. The evidence suggests that women of the sixteenth century did not always assume their husband's name in the way that many or most modern women usually do. Katherine Parr, for instance, is just one example of a Tudor-era woman who did not adopt her husband's name after marriage. Despite marrying several times, lastly and most famously to Henry VIII, she continued to sign her name "Kateryn Parr." Indeed, her signature on many legal documents from 1545, when she served briefly as regent (while Henry VIII was absent in France), appears as "Kateryn P," not "Kateryn Tudor." And like Parr, all of Henry VIII's other wives are known to history by their maiden names rather than their married name. We never hear of Katherine Tudor (of Aragon), Anne Tudor (Boleyn), Jane Tudor (Seymour), Anne Tudor (of Cleves), Katherine Tudor (Howard), or Katherine Tudor (Parr). Nor do historians limit this practice to royal wives. Consider, for example, Amy Robsart (Dudley), Lettice Knollys (Devereux Dudley), Katherine Grey (Seymour), Mary Grey (Keyes), and so on ad infinitum. I have actually discussed this seemingly odd practice with some of my historian colleagues, and while we all recognize that it is indeed odd, many argue that it is a "necessary evil" to avoid confusion. See, for example, the three wives of Henry VIII named "Katherine," or the two named "Anne." Similarly, Lady Jane Dudley (Duchess of Northumberland) versus Lady Jane Dudley (wife of Guildford). Yet in the case of Lettice Knollys, the given name is sufficiently unusual that confusion is less likely ... until we consider that she married several times. So should we refer to her as Lettice Knollys, Lettice Devereux, Lettice Dudley, or Lettice Knollys Devereux Dudley? Historians have taken the path of least resistance (and least likelihood of confusion) and opted to refer to many historical women by their maiden names. Though the practice may not be precise, in legal terms, and though it has other drawbacks as well, it does seem to limit confusion to a manageable level. Lastly, I might note that Philip Sidney, in his biography of Jane Grey Dudley published in 1900, presented a very spirited and well-reasoned argument for referring to Jane by her married rather than her maiden name. His argument was ignored, however, and less than ten years later Ida Taylor and Richard Davey each published biographies that refer to her as Jane Grey rather than Jane Dudley. Thus it would seem that a practice adopted within months of her death has persisted into the present, and will quite probably continue into the future. PhD Historian 12:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that that particular naming convention wasn't in use in the sixteenth century, but it doesn't surprise me. And of course you are right about women often being known to history by their maiden names or territorial designations, but I hadn't considered all the examples of such outside of royal consorts. Thanks for your very detailed answer to a question of little importance to the article... and thank you for being an academic willing to contribute to Wikipedia. TysK 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how she would have been known at the time of her death, but as a rule, history remembers women (and, indeed, men) according to their maiden names, or the land/kingdom they came from (I heard it was essentially to make it easier to tell where the man or woman came from, though that may be a myth). Thus, we speak of Anne Boleyn rather than Queen Anne or Anne Tudor, or Anne Marquess of Pembroke; and of Eleanor of Aquitaine, rather than Queen Eleanor of England. This is, however, more a guideline rather than a rule - history has examples of women being known by the name of their first husband. Thus, we generally refer to John of Gaunt's mistress and eventual third wife as Catherine Swynford, rather than either Catherine Roelt (her maiden name) or Catherine Duchess of Lancaster. In the case of Jane Grey's ancestress, Elizabeth Woodville, however, we refer to her by her maiden name of Woodville, rather than as Queen Elizabeth, or as Lady Elizabeth Grey (the name of her first husband). It's just a general tradition, really. Michaelsanders 12:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right; I just hadn't thought of those standards as applying to Lady Jane, though you have adequately shown that they do.. regardless, I never took exception with anything in the article- my question arose from mere curiosity. TysK 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life and Education

Can I just say that the section in this article on Jane Grey's "early life and education" is bunk? I do not know who wrote it or what sources they based their writing on, but it is clearly not based in legitimate primary sources. It seems to rely more on the plots of historical novels and films than anything else. This section of the article needs to be re-written so that it reflects the evidence of the primary sources rather than anachronistic storytelling. PhD Historian 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So write it, then. You clearly have both the knowledge of and the access to good sources, why leave it to those that haven't? Michaelsanders 22:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is on my "to do" list for after the holidays. I have until now hesitated to be too aggressive about changing the article because of the open nature of Wikipedia. It is extremely frustrating to re-write entire sections of an article, complete with full citations to primary sources, only to have some other "contributor" come along and "undo" it all because whatever I have written contradicts Alison Plowden/Mary Luke/Faith Cook, etc. I acknowledge that I have been somewhat "chicken-poop" by not having pursued the issue more aggressively before now, but my past attempts have been so frustrating. Additionally, I lack the computer skills necessary to accomlpish all the fancy formatting and cross-linking and such that Wikipedia thrives on. But expect after the holidays a substantial re-write of the entie article. I'll be curious to see how long it takes someone to undo it. PhD Historian 00:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in principle opposed to a substantial re-write of the article, but I suggest you discuss what changes you are proposing to make before doing so. I also suggest taking this in a number of stages, not all at once. However I detect the implication that may be trying to overturn the received wisdom on some issues, be careful. PatGallacher 01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will be done in stages, if only to test the level of resistance at the start. I will also be posting on this "Talk" page full discussion of each change, including detailed references to all source materials. Afterall, the only real way for Wikipedia ever to be successful as a consistently reliable source of information is if there is some clear indication of how the information was derived. In that regard, if any of you have the necessary skills for creating footnotes in a Wiki article (I do not), I'd be delighted to have your assistance in doing so. And yes, you infer correctly that I may be "overturning the received wisdom on some issues." One example already posted on this discussion page is the issue of Jane Grey's date of birth. But I'm not sure what you mean by "be careful." Is it a violation of Wikipedia etiquette to correct erroneous assumptions when those assumptions can be clearly and easily shown to be false? I realize that people are often very emotionally invested in the stories of their historical heroes and prefer them as literary characters rather than "real" people. So if Wiki users prefer Agnes Strickland's and Richard Davey's highly fictionalized Jane Grey to the Jane Grey found in the sixteenth-century Tudor archives, I'm happy to let that fiction stand, at least on Wikipedia. All I ask is that contributors/editors discuss their objections rather than editing without comment. PhD Historian 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt it would simply be reverted. If anyone thought that was necessary, they'd have to discuss it. As for what you intend to write, if it is based on genuine sources, it is unquestionable - just be careful to cite your sources, especially for the controversial bits. Also, try to find another published historian(s) [having read your profile, I note that you are publishing your own work. That might do, once it is published: I don't know what the wikipedia attitude is to those who edit based upon their own published work.] who supports your views, and cite him/her - this will remove accusations of OR, and allow us to (if we think it necessary) double check details. As for overturning 'received wisdom', I think that would be a very fine thing - however, be aware that wikipedia is not meant to be a formum for opinions. If your views on Lady Jane Grey (which you say are firmly supported by primary evidence) are obvious statements of facts, and possibly have support in published work (preferably from a reputable historian, rather than those of Holy Blood... calibre), then there will be no issue. If, however, it is merely your interpretation of what happened - no matter how valid - the issue will become more complex. However, it will do no harm for you to write it, as you suggest it - in stages, discussing each point. I'm sure all of us will be happy to aid you. Merry Christmas! Michaelsanders 08:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback and suggestions. Your plan sounds ideal. There is, however, one small problem in regard to finding another "published historian" who supports my view, and that problem is that no trained academic historian has ever undertaken a detailed biographical study of Jane Grey. All of the current biographies on Jane Grey were written by novelists (Hester Chapman, Mary Luke) or someone with no university education in rigorous historiographic methodologies. The most frequently cited of Jane's popular (i.e., non-academic, untrained) biographers, Alison Plowden, had no university education and worked for many years as a scriptwriter for the BBC. And while that does not disqualify her from writing good history, her two bios of Jane were severely criticized in the academic history journals for their failure to conduct adequate research and failure to make use of all the available sources. Unimaginable as it may sound in regard to a historical figure who enjoys such longstanding popularity as Jane Grey, my biography of her will be the first from a trained academic historian. Check the Bibliography pages of my own website, www.somegreymatter.com, for a review of the existing works related directly to Jane Grey. In the current absence of acceptable peer-reviewed scholarship on Jane, mine will have to stand alone until another academic historian challenges it. PhD Historian 20:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent missing section(s)

I don't mean to be difficult, but am I the only one concerned that this article goes from Ascension to Execution without any of discription of what happened between, including reign (what there was of it) and removal from the throne? Or what happened between being removed to the final rebellion that lead to her execution? It seems to my untrained eye that there are key bits of information that are completely lacking that would be needed to have the whole story. If I'm misreading this, please feel free to correct me. Stephanie Barr 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Stephanie Barr[reply]

You are absolutely correct. The issues you point out are among those that I hope to correct as I re-write the article over the next few weeks. Watch for postings on this Talk page regarding the coming changes. PhD Historian 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de facto vs de jure

As with the articles on Mary and Edward VI, the terms de facto and de jure were used incorrectly here. Jane was made Queen by an act which was not made up according to the requirements by law. Nevertheless, that act was made up and she -was- crowned as queen and was recognized as such at least for a few days. Until July 19th 1553, she was queen by law, or De Jure. However, she wielded no real power, while Mary did. Ergo, Mary was queen in fact, if not by law, therefore, was the de facto queen.

I've corrected this in this entry, it is now consistent with this view of events as explained in a section on the page on Edward VI. I've proposed for this issue to be debated on the discussion page for that article, hoping that if any changes will be made there, they will be carried over to the other two articles. But it seems only logical for all three articles to be consistent in this regard. Skeptic77 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with our anonymous contributor's definition of de jure and de facto, I disagree completely on the rest. Whether or not Edward VI's Devise for the Succession was, as an instrument for altering the succession, drawn up under correct legal process is quite debatable. Certinaly Edward attempted to make it very legal, asking the Privy Council, Law Judges, Lord Mayor of London, and City Aldermen to witness it since Parliament was not then in session to ratify it. The intent at the time of its creation was to have it confirmed by act of Parliament, but Edward did not live long enough to see that through. The best that can be said of the Devise is that its legality was, at the time of its creation, questionable. Second, Jane Grey was never "crowned queen." She was proclaimed queen on 10 July 1553, but no coronation ever occurred. I disagree that she "wielded no power." An entire chapter of my forthcoming book is devoted to that very issue. She DID wield power, and the machinery of government at every level acted in her name for that nine days, so much so that one of the first acts passed in Mary's first Parliament was a statute voiding the actions taken by Jane and by those acting in her name. If Jane wielded no power and her reign was a cypher, such an act of revocation would not have been necessary. Further, Mary was not proclaimed or recognized as queen in London or any of the major cities until 19 July 1553. Under English custom, one cannot be monarch until one has the support of London. Mary was therefore neither de jure nor de facto queen until 19 July 1553, and historians date her reign accordingly. there is absolute consensus among historians that Mary became queen, both de jure and de facto, on 19 July 1553, not before.PhD Historian 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhD Historian. It seems you've missed my point. This is not -my- take on things, this is the view that has been established on the page devoted to Edward VI. I only tied up the loose ends, made every mention of De Facto and De Jure in the three articles related to Edward VI, Mary and Jane Grey consistent in this respect, because they were now used completely at random and only served to confuse matters even further. Please see my notes on this topic on the discussion page for Edward VI. Although I will say here that someone who can topple and replace an established Queen in just a few days wields a lot more power than the Queen she replaces, so I would say that it's not that odd to say Mary was De Facto Queen of England after Edward VI died. But that is kind of semantic and please do see my notes in this regard on the aforementioned page. BTW, I'm no longer anonymous. ;) Skeptic77 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy Tables

Is it necessary that the large genealogy table be placed right in the middle of the text of the article? Isn't it something of a distraction visually? Might it not be better placed at the end of the article where it can be viewed without disrupting the flow of the text? Or does it somehow provide through its current placement information critical to the understanding of subsequent text? PhD Historian 19:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starkey Miniature

Just ran across an interesting article, A Tudor specialist, David Starkey after 12 month of research believes he has found contemporary portrait of Lady Jane Grey, Here is the link: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article1469701.ece Haugedo 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)haugedo[reply]

As one who has done a great deal of research on portraits of Jane Grey (and continues to do so), I'd like to chime in. I can also say that I was consulted by Bendor Grosvenor, a director at Philip Mouild Ltd, on this miniature portrait and others in their exhibition. I have to disagree with Dr Starkey on the identification of this picture, and I have conveyed that disagreement to Philip Mould Ltd. There are just too many issues with it for it to be identified as Jane Grey. In the first place, the piece is clearly inscribed Anno XVIII. And while it is true that the exact month and day of Jane's birth are not known, the year is almost certainly 1537, based on numerous pieces of documentary and circumstantial evidence from the period, including a letter from John Aylmer dated May 1551 in which he says she was then 14 years old. That would mean she was 16 years old in May 1553. As such, she never lived to be 18 years of age, having died in February 1554, not yet at age 17. Jane thus never lived to be "in her 18th year" (i.e., she never reached her 17th birthday). Mr Grosvenor at Mould Ltd said there is some suggestion that the third "I" is a later addition, but no forensic analysis has yet confirmed that impression. Dr. Starkey suggests that the painting may have been done while Jane was a prisoner in the Tower, and thus near the end of her life. As I told Mr Grosvenor, I am not aware of any prisoner in the Tower, regardless of rank, being painted in a portrait while prisoner, ever. Access to prisoners was strictly limited and controlled. Letters of access from the Privy Council were required in order to visit high ranking prisoners, even for family members, as evidenced by the collected "Acts of the Privy Council." So why in the world would the Council give access to an artist to paint a young female prisoner convicted (after 13 Nov 1553) of treason? It just makes no logical sense to me. Secondly, the pinks are far from conclusive, and almost not even suggestive, of an identification. They were just too common as a badge, certainly not unique to the Grey family or the Dudleys. Though both used them, so did some other families. And who is to say their inclusion is meant as a badge? They could as easily be whimsical. Thirdly, the jewel. Dr Starkey has repeated here a very common mistake. He cites an "inventory of Jane Grey's possessions at the British Library." In my own extensive research, the only such inventory that I found was a list of items borrowed by Jane (or "gifted" to her) on her accession, taken from the royal treasury upon her arrival in the Tower on 10 July 1553. The "inventory," at least the single one that I was able to find (Harley MS 611) is actually contained in a letter from Mary in which she threatens the Lord Treasurer with punishment if he does not immediately recover "the said items" and return them to their rightful place in the treasury. For some reason, "historians" like Agnes Strickland, Richard Davey, and Alison Plowden have interpreted the inventory as a list of Jane's personal possessions that she brought with her to the Tower rather than as a list of items that came into her possession after her arrival and that she used only while queen. I have to wonder if Starkey is not relying on the conclusions of others, without having done his own first-hand archival research on this issue? Further, the "very small gold decorations ... sewn into the top of her dress" were as common as lace, to coin a phrase. Similar decorations occur in almost every aristocratic female portrait of the period.But in sum, I do not think the jewelry connection is viable. Much as I would love to see a reliable life portrait of Jane Grey, I am totally unconvinced by Starkey's argument, and none of the other evidence presented to me by Mould Ltd (not mentioned in the newspaper articles) swayed my opinion in any way. They have a second portrait in the exhibition that they are also identifying as Jane Grey. It is a full sized one and belongs to the descendants of the eighteenth century Grey dukes of Kent. I am very doubtful that that portrait is of Jane either. I think it is a portrait of Lady Jane Dacre, and I conveyed that opinion to Mr. Grosvenor and to Philip Mould Ltd where the portait is now exhibited. PhD Historian 20:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Execution incomplete

The execution section ends with the bystander helping Jane to the block. This doesn't include her last words "Lord, into thy hands, I commend my spirit", the actual beheading and the executioner picking up the head and shouting "So perish all the queen's enemies, Behold the head of a traitor!". Someone has deleting this formerly added section saying that it is "pure fiction". But it is true, in addition to the link http://englishhistory.net/tudor/relative/janegrey.html, many books and historians will testify that this is true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.152.199 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Anonymous: Please cite for me one document or eye-witness account from 12 February 1554 that describes events in the same way as your addition to the article. Please cite for me just one of the "many books and historians" that say the bit about executioners shouting while holding up her head actually occurred. Please cite for me one eye-witness account from 1554 that confirms that Jane said "Lord, into thy hands...." etc. Please, just one. I will in turn cite for you a long list of eye-witness and contemporary accounts contained in or printed from handwritten original documents from 1554 and now on file at the British Library, the Public Record Office at Kew, and other locations that do not include those details. See, for example, The Chronicle of Queen Jane (ed. John Gough Nichols. London: Camden Society, 1850); British Library Egerton Manuscript 2148 – Thomas Hoby’s “Booke of the Trauaile and lief of me;” BL Egerton Manuscript 2642 - a sixteenth century almanac; BL Harley Manuscripts 416, 422, 424, and 425 - personal papers of John Foxe dealing with Jane Grey; The life, death and actions of the most chast, learned, and religious lady, the Lady Iane Gray, daughter to the Duke of Suffolke Containing foure principall discourses written with her owne hands. The first an admonition to such as are weake in faith: the second a catechisme: the third an exhortation to her sister: and the last her words at her death (London: Printed by G. Eld, for John Wright,1615); The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant-Taylor of London, from A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1563 (ed. John Gough Nichols. London: The Camden Society, 1848). Shall I go on? Yes, I deleted the addition about Jane's commending her spirit to God and the executioner holding up her head because those details are modern fictional inventions that are neither confirmed nor supported by the accounts of sixteenth-century eye-witnesses. However romantic and picturesque the details may be, they simply are not true. PhD Historian 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PhD Historian: I think that the reason that some of the accounts or books of Jane's execution leave out the part of Jane's commending her spirit to God and the executioner holding up her head to leave out the 'gory' materials or to make it seem tragic. However, I agree with user 99.245.152.199 because in contrast to these few accounts and books there are a number, if not many, historians and witnesses that testify that this is true. You asked for examples. One example of an account is http://englishhistory.net/tudor/exjane.html and an example of a historian is Allison Weir (who is mentioned in the article). I would ask that you look at the Lady Jane Grey article in Simple English Wikipedia- the execution part seems interesting. Daniel Hu 21:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Hu: I understand and appreciate your polite response. And you are correct that Marilee at englishhistory.net repeats the myth of Jane's commending her spirit and the executioner holding up her head with shouts. May I just point out, however, that Marilee constructed her account by referencing the many popular (i.e., non-scholarly and often semi-fictional) histories of Jane Grey, and not by conducting her own firsthand research in the archives? And with all due respect to Alison Weir, a respectable "popular" but minimally trained historian, Ms Weir has fallen victim to the same error. Again, having examined a large number of handwritten eye-witness accounts of the execution contained in various archival collections at the British Library and the British National Archives Public Record Office at Kew, I can only observe that not one account dating from 1554 contains any mention whatsoever of the executioner holding up Jane's head and shouting about traitors. However much 99.245.152.199 and his/her supporters insist that events unfolded as they claim, without eye-witness documentation to support those claims such insistence must remain at best speculative. History is a matter of documentation, not popular belief based on subsequent creative writing. The Simple English Wikipedia article on Jane Grey is a prime example of the latter. I was not aware that Simple Wiki existed, but thank you for pointing it out. Reading the Jane Grey article, so wonderfully stuffed with fictional elements and totally lacking in documentation, gave me a much-needed belly laugh! I suppose it does not do any real harm for people to believe the fictional execution account contained there (or any of the other fictional material therein), just as it does no harm to believe that George Washington cut down a cherry tree and slept in half the beds on the east coast of the US. But I just don't understand the need for belief in such myths when they are so clearly not supported by documentable history. PhD Historian 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Streatham Portrait

I am glad to see that someone has added the Streatham portrait and placed it in a more prominent position than the much later van de Passe engraving. I'm curious about two terms in the text accompanying the picture, however. Why is the caption above the picture worded "Proprietary Queen of England and Ireland"? The addition of "proprietary" seems entirely superfluous and unnecessary. I have never seen that term used in association with any English monarch, male or female, ever. And the term even seems erroneous to the extent that it implies that her husband was co-monarch, having acquired a kingly title through marriage and her claim. Yet Jane reigned as sole monarch for those nine days. Guildford remained offically simply "Lord Guildford, the queen's husband," and is not known to have exercised any power whatsoever. Second, the picture is described as "the only contemporary" portrait of Jane. The portrait has been definitively dated to after 1590, however, nearly half a century after Jane's death. That is not "contemporary," or "living, existing, or occurring together in time" (OED, s.v. "contemporary"). It would be more accurate to describe the Streatham portrait as "among the first posthumous portraits" of Jane Grey. Other sixteenth-century portraits of Jane Grey are known to have existed, at least two of which pre-dated the Streatham portrait by as much as 30 years. The current caption almost implies that the Streatham portriat is a life portrait, that the artist saw Jane in person and then painted her picture. This is clearly not possible, given the known time at which the picture was painted. Such small details matter and should be corrected if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously and considered "reliable" and "accurate." PhD Historian 08:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]