Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Tudors => Topic started by: Kimberly on July 18, 2005, 04:43:36 AM

Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 18, 2005, 04:43:36 AM
Jane Grey was a young intellectual who found it difficult to believe that she was ever wrong or that her opinions were not shared by others. Her intense Protestantism ruled her life but she was a victim of Northumberlands plot to maintain the Reformation n England.IMHO i think she entirely believed God meant her to be Queen so she was quite the willing participant in Northumberlands scheming. I think she would have ended up burning as many religious opponants as Mary did given half the chance.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ChristineM on July 18, 2005, 04:59:00 AM
Kimberley - She was seventeen... a child and a pawn.

tsaria
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: bluetoria on July 18, 2005, 06:46:35 AM
This is what is left of Bradgate House in Bradgate Park, Leicestershire - the former home of poor Lady Jane Grey. She is very fondly remembered in the villages around the park.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/bluetoria/BradgateHouse1.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 18, 2005, 07:29:59 AM
I know she was 17 but she had a very intellectual head on her shoulders. I am not deriding the girl,i said she also was a victim. Besides which,we were all 17 once and I know that i went through a stage of thinking i knew it all. We have all been ther surely ;)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ilyala on July 18, 2005, 09:05:53 AM
no-one will ever know, really... she doesn't strike me as fanatic as mary, though.... although admitedly i don't know as much about jane as i know about mary...

anyone know anything about her husband?
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ChristineM on July 18, 2005, 09:14:31 AM
I am unaware of any evidence which suggests Lady Jane Grey had aspirations to accede the throne.  

Quite the contrary.   I understood when confronted with the possibility of ruling, she greeted the prospect with despair.

tsaria
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 18, 2005, 09:17:56 AM
Guilford Dudley, son of John Duke of Northumberland. Born in 1536, he was the brother of Robert Dudley-Elizabeth's "sweet Robin".He was executed on Tower Hill on 12th February 1554 and buried in the chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula within the Tower of London. ;)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ilyala on July 18, 2005, 09:31:37 AM
how old was he when he died? was he younger or older than robert?
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 18, 2005, 09:43:19 AM
He was about 18 when he died.I think Robert was older being born in 1532
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ilyala on July 18, 2005, 09:57:39 AM
silly me you had already mentioned the year of birth ;D...

i wonder how he felt about his father's plans...  :-/
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Martyn on July 18, 2005, 10:17:07 AM
Tsaria is quite right.  Jane Grey and her husband Guilford Dudley were entirely the pawns of their respective parents; in his case, his father, the Duke of Northumberland and in hers, that of her mother Frances Duchess of Suffolk, granddaughter of Henry VII.

It is believed that Jane's adherence to the Protestant religion was sincere and that she did subscribe to the idea that her claim was legitimate in view of Mary's Catholicism.

Mary's decision to impose the ultimate penalty upon Jane was not, I am sure,  made lightly.  If anyone should have been punished severely, it should have been the Duchess, as her dynastic aspirations and hunger for power were just as voracious and disastrous as those of Northumberland.

Interestingly, the Dudleys were to have more success in the later reign of Elizabeth, as Robert Dudley, who shared Mary's displeasure and disaffection became close to the young Princess Elizabeth during their respective sojourns in the Tower.  He was created Earl of Leicester by her and was the chief favourite at court until his death; it is rumoured by some that they were lovers and he had been widely tipped to become the Queen's husband, which would have satsified all his late father's dynastic hopes; only the scandal surrounding the death of his wife Amy Robsart putting paid to his royal matrimonial prospects.  What is certain is that he is the only man that she ever truly loved........
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mgmstl on July 18, 2005, 10:42:24 AM
Quote
Tsaria is quite right.  Jane Grey and her husband Guilford Dudley were entirely the pawns of their respective parents; in his case, his father, the Duke of Northumberland and in hers, that of her mother Frances Duchess of Suffolk, granddaughter of Henry VII.

It is believed that Jane's adherence to the Protestant religion was sincere and that she did subscribe to the idea that her claim was legitimate in view of Mary's Catholicism.

Mary's decision to impose the ultimate penalty upon Jane was not, I am sure,  made lightly.  If anyone should have been punished severely, it should have been the Duchess, as her dynastic aspirations and hunger for power were just as voracious and disastrous as those of Northumberland.

Interestingly, the Dudleys were to have more success in the later reign of Elizabeth, as Robert Dudley, who shared Mary's displeasure and disaffection became close to the young Princess Elizabeth during their respective sojourns in the Tower.  He was created Earl of Leicester by her and was the chief favourite at court until his death; it is rumoured by some that they were lovers and he had been widely tipped to become the Queen's husband, which would have satsified all his late father's dynastic hopes; only the scandal surrounding the death of his wife Amy Robsart putting paid to his royal matrimonial prospects.  What is certain is that he is the only man that she ever truly loved........


Interesting isn't that while Jane, Guilford, his father and her father all lost their lives, that Frances Duchess of Suffolk is the only one who was spared their life, and attended court afterwards.  

I wonder why she was not beheaded for her role in the usurping of the crown by Lady Jane Grey.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Prince_Lieven on July 18, 2005, 12:01:40 PM
Quote
I know she was 17 but she had a very intellectual head on her shoulders. I am not deriding the girl,i said she also was a victim. Besides which,we were all 17 once and I know that i went through a stage of thinking i knew it all. We have all been ther surely ;)



I'm going through that stage right now!! : - )

Anyway, I agree that Jane was a complete victim and I do pity her, but I dislike the way she derided Mary's religion when she saw one of Mary's ladies curtsying to the Host and said 'Is the Lady Mary in the chapel?' She comes across, I think, like Edward VI, as a bit of a stuck up, finishing-school prig. But I DO feel sorry for her.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ilyala on July 18, 2005, 12:02:10 PM
she was an old friend of queen mary's apparently... it was widely accepted that the whole thing was northumberland's idea so frances was considered innocent
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mgmstl on July 18, 2005, 12:36:01 PM
Quote
she was an old friend of queen mary's apparently... it was widely accepted that the whole thing was northumberland's idea so frances was considered innocent



Is it true that Mary I was hesitant, and in fact openly did not want to execute her cousin Lady Jane Grey, or is this just historical revisionism?   What evidence would exist today to examine?   Did Mary ever make a statement.

Elizabeth I had a mistrust of the Grey's from Mary's encounter with them, and wanted little or nothing to do with them, as she felt with Lady Margaret Douglas, daughter of aunt, Margaret of Scotland.  I think Elizabeth was raised to keep her own counsel while Mary was probably raised around the Grey's as Frances's mother would often attend court with Henry VIII & Catherine of Aragon.  

Frances's mother of course being Mary, Duchess of Suffolk, the Dowager Queen of France, and sister of Henry VIII, and she stayed away from court when Henry threw Catherine over for Anne.   Mary was born in 1517, Frances in 1516.  
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ilyala on July 18, 2005, 01:20:03 PM
frances was born in 1518.

second of all, the simple fact that lady jane was not executed until her father tried to raise an army to reinstall her is proof enough that she was hesitant of the execution. had she wanted to execute her she would have done it immediately.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on July 19, 2005, 10:22:32 AM
Quote


Is it true that Mary I was hesitant, and in fact openly did not want to execute her cousin Lady Jane Grey, or is this just historical revisionism?   What evidence would exist today to examine?   Did Mary ever make a statement.
.  


According to Alison Weir "The ambassadors then counselled Mary once more to have Jane Grey executed, but still she would not hear of it. jane and her husband would remain in the Tower, she said, until such time as it was safe to grant them pardons and release them. They would be tried and condemned, as a matter of form, but her conscience would not permit her to put them to death, even though they had technically committed treason. Renard argued that this was unwise, and Gardiner was of the same opinion, but Mary heeded neither of them. In fact, she had been very impressed by a lengthy letter sent her by Jane on 5 August, giving a full and honest account of her nine days' reign without making too many excuses for herself. What came across very clearly to the Queen was that Jane had had no choice in in the matter, even though she had admitted that she had done wrong in accepting the crown and 'was ashamed to ask pardon for such a crime'. ... The Queen would only assure Renard that she would be watchful in case Lady Jane became the focus of any further conspiracy, and would ensure that the realm was quiet before she set her free, at which the ambassador expressed the hope that she would not regret such extraordinary clemency (Children of England, p.200f.)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 21, 2005, 02:44:21 PM
No idea, but I would guess so. A young, healthy couple, lets hope they had a little happiness together, their lives were tragically short. (of course, they could have loathed each other). ;)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 21, 2005, 03:04:59 PM
Blanche, if they married in May1553 and died in february 1554, they weren't together a year. then, were they together after Jane was deposed-July 1553? If they weren't, then that only gave them a couple of months together. Sometimes it takes a while to conceive a child. (and some people have "honeymoon babies" ooops  ;D)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: emeraldeyes on July 27, 2005, 03:27:39 PM
Has anyone seen the movie that was made some time ago with Helena Bonham-Carter as Lady Jane?  If memory serves it was quite good, although  I can't remember how historically accurate it was.  
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Prince_Lieven on July 27, 2005, 03:43:11 PM
I never seen it, but I heard it was centered around Jane and Guilford's tragic love story - doesn't sound very accurate. For all we know they hated each other.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Tsarfan on July 27, 2005, 04:36:16 PM
The movie is entertaining but hardly historically accurate.  If the scriptwriter is to be believed, Queen Jane would have attempted to create Europe's first socialist state had she been left to rule by her own lights.  The silly scene in which she and Dudley break glass after glass as they ridicule point-by-point all the tenets of the property-holding classes in England just beggars description.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 06:25:49 PM
Quote
The movie is entertaining but hardly historically accurate.  If the scriptwriter is to be believed, Queen Jane would have attempted to create Europe's first socialist state had she been left to rule by her own lights.  The silly scene in which she and Dudley break glass after glass as they ridicule point-by-point all the tenets of the property-holding classes in England just beggars description.



Unfortunately Hollywood takes those liberties that should often best be advised against, such Mary of Guise appearing as a wanton woman and dying after a night in bed with Sir Francis Walsingham, being a bit over the top, actually a very well done film though.

Even though those liberties like those in Lady Jane Grey are a bit hard to swallow
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: emeraldeyes on July 27, 2005, 08:55:53 PM
Although the studio is Paramount, I always thought the film was English-made. ???
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Tsarfan on July 28, 2005, 09:30:28 AM
I can understand how having a first exposure to Helena Bonham-Carter in Lady Jane might put you off her for all time.  However, I feel the fault for this little travesty of history lies more with the director and scriptwriter than with the actress.

Bonham-Carter has been quite good in her work with Merchant and Ivory, and those films are just too good to miss on her account.  Also, I have seen her in some U.S. productions where she convincingly shed every shred of her English accent.  She's no Meryl Streep (who is?) . . . but she ain't too bad.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: jehan on July 28, 2005, 09:38:01 AM
Quote
I found the film a bit rubbish and thats the first ever film I've seen of Helena Bonham-Carter act in... when I know she's in any film I don't bother watching it because it reminds me that its going to be another rubbish film


I'm a stickler for reasonable historical accuracy in film (don't get me started on "Braveheart! ;)), but I have to admit I liked "Lady Jane".

I know that the love story wasn't true- Jane and Guildford never did get along (although to answer another question on this thread, according to several bios about her, the marriage WAS consummated, although not until a few months after the wedding), and the whole reforming England idea didn't happen either.  But the underlying essentials ARE true- that in Tudor times children were essentially political pawns in the hands of their elders- to be used ruthlessly,with no choice as to their lives or fates, and that point was made very well.

Also the costumes and sets are bang-on accurate, as is the music.  The portrayals are good- Jane's parents, Jane herself, Cary Elwes as Guilford (and the thigh-high boots didn't hurt his performance either !!)  I thought that the portrayal of Queen Mary was excellent too- showing her as a woman in love with a portrait of her soon-to-be husband  and reluctant to condemn Jane, when a lesser movie would have made her a villain.  The portrayal of the kindly Dr Feckenham is really good (some of the dialogue between him and Jane is taken straight from historical records).

Do you really think that all of Helena B-C's film are rubbish?  She was really good in "A Room with a View", "Margaret's Museum", Howard's End- hardly bad films, any of them.  I even liked her portrayal of Ophelia in Mel Gibson's Hamlet- she put a spin on the character I had never seen before. (He "roses for remembrance" speech was rather chilling, rather than the usual feyness other actresses have brought to the role, I thought)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: jehan on July 28, 2005, 05:09:35 PM
Quote


In which bios have you read that in? there is no bio I've ever read mentioning that the marriage was ever consummated


Hester Chapman "Lady Jane Grey" Pan Books 1972 p76

Mary Luke "The Nine Days Queen" William Morrow 1986 pp244-245

I know of at least one other I read years ago, but I don't own it and don't remember the author, so I can't cite it here.

Edited- Also Alison Weir "Children  of England" Random House 1996 p 145

(In fact I haven't read a bio that states it was NOT consummated!)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Arianwen on July 28, 2005, 05:47:42 PM
Quote


In which bios have you read that in? there is no bio I've ever read mentioning that the marriage was ever consummated


I've read it in the same sources as jehan. At first, Jane didn't live with her husband, but once she did, the marriage was consummated (their parents pretty much forced them).

As for 'Lady Jane', her 'love affair' with Guildford is what I would have liked for her, after such a difficult childhood and with such a short adulthood, but I don't believe it was true for one moment. For most of it, they did a bang-up job with the accuracy, giving really fair portrayals of even the 'bad guys', but they did turn it into a romance. As for Jane wanting children not to be beaten but loved, who says that's not accurate? Do I think it was a point of legislation? No. She was too firmly under the control of the council until they betrayed her.

While I think she was a victim, I think she was willingly duped. Dudley told her she was meant to be queen, that it was a sign from God to preserve Protestantism, and she bought it, but I still don't think she wanted the crown. Jane had a tendency to be pigheaded, as all we intellectuals can be ;), but she showed a lack of tolerance that mirrors her cousin Mary's.

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 29, 2005, 04:42:33 AM
Re the lack of tolerance issue. I think that if things had been different and Jane had continued as Queen, she would have gone down in history as "Bloody Jane"with a mass (pardon the pun) purging of Catholics.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: bluetoria on July 29, 2005, 06:44:28 AM
This wonderful painting by Delaroche depicts her execution:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/bluetoria/delaroc88.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 29, 2005, 11:08:56 AM
Yes,it crosses my mind occasionally. I also wonder wether Edward VI would have done the same if he had lived longer.Hope this doesn't offend anyone but I do not think Edward or Jane would have been as religiously tolerant as Elizabethwas.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Elisabeth on July 29, 2005, 11:30:39 AM
I tend to agree with you, Kimberly. I've always thought Jane Grey very unfortunate and a sympathetic figure overall, because of her unhappy childhood and terrible fate, but as a personality, let's face it, she was something of a prig and a pedant. She was every bit as rigid and intolerant in her religious views as her cousin, Edward VI. But perhaps my view of her has also been colored by Jane Austen's wonderfully catty description of her in the Tower after the execution of Guildford. Austen writes in her mock History of England that Jane "wrote a sentence in Latin and another one in Greek as she saw the dead body of her husband passing by."

P.S. I am quoting from memory since I don't have the text in front of me!
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on July 30, 2005, 10:17:13 AM
I, too, rather liked Lady Jane, despite its inaccurate romanticism - can they ever do without this  :P?, and like Jehan, I was quite satisfied with most of the characterization and the settings.

I also agree with Kimberly and Elisabeth that Jane Grey and Edward VI give the impression they might have developed into pretty intolerant and fundamentalist rulers.

Edward and Jane  would have suited each other well intelectually. So on a personal level Jane might have been the ideal wife for Edward had he lived. Probably good for England though that he did not.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mgmstl on July 30, 2005, 10:28:41 AM
Portrait of Lady Jane Grey according to National Portrait Gallery.  There is SOME CONFUSION as to the identity of this portrait & it is also attributed to be that of Katherine Parr.

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a356/mgmstl/janegrey1545.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Prince_Lieven on July 30, 2005, 10:31:51 AM
She looks very gown up for someone who didn't live to be seventeen . . .
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on July 30, 2005, 10:38:35 AM
I thought this portrait had by now been identified as showing Katherine Parr and not Jane Grey.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mgmstl on July 30, 2005, 10:50:38 AM
Quote
I thought this portrait had by now been identified as showing Katherine Parr and not Jane Grey.



I find it in the National Portrait Gallery as Lady Jane Grey and in other places as Katherine Parr, I have book that says it is Katherine Parr.  So I am a bit confused here, sorry if I caused any error.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mgmstl on July 30, 2005, 10:53:48 AM
Katherine Grey & her son Edward that was born in the Tower:

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a356/mgmstl/bgp12.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mgmstl on July 30, 2005, 10:55:02 AM
Frances Brandon Duchess Of Suffolk & Adrian Stokes, Jane's mother & stepfather:

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a356/mgmstl/janes_parents.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mgmstl on July 30, 2005, 10:57:03 AM
An engraving of Jane from an unknown artist:

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a356/mgmstl/jane_engrave.gif)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mgmstl on July 30, 2005, 08:26:48 PM
Quote

This is not Henry Grey, Jane's father it is Frances' second husband


I am not sure will have to go back to check, it was lableled as Janes parents.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 31, 2005, 03:22:17 AM
I thought it was Adrian Stokes, but its a bit early in the morning for me. ;)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 31, 2005, 03:29:42 AM
Well,that 4th mug of coffee worked, its Frances Brandon and Adrian Stokes painted by Hans Eworth.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mgmstl on July 31, 2005, 09:46:30 AM
The photo specified "Jane Grey's Parents" I will change it.   I did think he was a little young for Frances.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 31, 2005, 09:52:10 AM
He was her "toy-boy". ;) He was her master of horse and half her age and I think it was a marriage "after the event" if you catch my drift because she had a daughter soon after the wedding who sadly died.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 31, 2005, 10:41:54 AM
This marriage caused a bit of a to-do because she married Stokes about a month after the execution of her first husband. The baby girl was born and died in 1554 and Frances went on to have 2 sons as well but they both died in infancy. Frances herself died in 1559 and is buried in Westminster Abbey. She might not have been a particularly nice woman but she sure had "guts"and a mind of her own!
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on July 31, 2005, 10:44:38 AM
She would have been 37 in 1554( Stokes was about 21)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: cantacuzene on August 01, 2005, 06:15:25 AM
(http://fotos.miarroba.com/fotos/7/f/7f10381d.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: SonjaMarie on August 04, 2005, 11:47:01 PM
Hi,

My name is Sonja Marie, I own the website The Lady Jane Grey Internet Museum http://www.bitterwisdom.com/ladyjanegrey/ that members might be interested in checking out.

I've been reading books on British history since I was 13 (19 years now), I especially like the Tudors and Jane has been my particular favourite.

I hope if you visit and enjoy my site you'll let me know.

Sonja Marie
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: SonjaMarie on August 05, 2005, 02:52:32 PM
Hi Blanche,

You're welcome, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I love finding new stuff I've never seen of Jane, though it seems to get harder to do as time goes by as she was never as famous as other Tudors.  It's like a teasure hunt often you find more trash then treasure.

I'll probably updating in Oct or so, I'm just waiting for permission to post something that is potentially important to those interested in Jane.

Sonja Marie
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: imperial angel on March 23, 2006, 10:31:25 AM
I think Lady Jane Grey was more a pawn of those around her than anything else, because she had to be, of neccesity. She was an intellectual, but very young, and forced to do what she had to do to survive, which killed in her in the end. Her execution was unfair because she might have been a rebel, but it wasn't her choice. She never loved her husband, but after all, Hollywood turns many stories into love stories that were not to begin with.

It seems to me that Jane had the makings of intolerance in her, yes. She would not have been as tolerant as Elizabeth, not that many were. How much this would have developed would be interesting, but she would in some ways have been a queen of her age, but stronger, and more intellectual than most.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on March 23, 2006, 10:37:59 AM
Thats interesting;"a queen of her age". Yes, but I have a sneaking feeling it would have been for all the wrong reasons. Ithink she would have ended up with as "bloody" a reputation as Mary IMHO- maybe even more so. I fear she would have developed a dreadful Anti-Catholic regime
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: imperial angel on March 23, 2006, 11:04:35 AM
That is certainly a possible line of argument. She was very fanatically protestant, and this might have lead her down a bad path, to be very fervently anti-catholic. It is hard to say given her age at death, and changing circumstances, but it is a strong possibility, she would be remembered as less innocent had she lived longer.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Lucien on March 22, 2007, 03:54:47 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/03/05/ngrey05.xml

Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on March 22, 2007, 04:28:04 AM
Thank you again Lucien, you are very kind. :-* :-*
For more chat about the miniature please see "Portrait Identification".
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kurt Steiner on March 22, 2007, 05:17:35 AM
Thats interesting;"a queen of her age". Yes, but I have a sneaking feeling it would have been for all the wrong reasons. Ithink she would have ended up with as "bloody" a reputation as Mary IMHO- maybe even more so. I fear she would have developed a dreadful Anti-Catholic regime

Specially if you have Northumberland ruling hidden behind the throne. I don't have any single doubt that he would have clinged to the crown with all his might and ambition. And we all know what does that mean.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Paul on March 22, 2007, 06:43:45 AM
Her execution was unfair because she might have been a rebel, but it wasn't her choice.

Even an unwilling rival heir can still attract conspirators & rebels. Her regime was imposed by a minority faction & lasted only 9 days. Still: Mary's extreme Catholicism might've triggered a warped nostalgia for Good Queen Jane. If Jane had been allowed to live, those who became soured on Mary's reign might've (again!) used Jane as a figurehead and attempted another coup.

Mary had no choice but to kill her- no matter her personal inclinations toward mercy. It was, truly, a tragic necessity.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: imperial angel on March 22, 2007, 09:18:32 AM
In that era, all that was true. That era saw it the way you see it. I guess I was seeing it from the modern point of view.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: bell_the_cat on March 22, 2007, 07:25:06 PM
I don't see why she had to execute Guildford as well, though.....
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Prince_Lieven on March 23, 2007, 12:22:44 PM
I don't see why she had to execute Guildford as well, though.....

Like Jane, he was 'guilty by association'.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ilyala on March 24, 2007, 01:55:52 AM
Her execution was unfair because she might have been a rebel, but it wasn't her choice.

Even an unwilling rival heir can still attract conspirators & rebels. Her regime was imposed by a minority faction & lasted only 9 days. Still: Mary's extreme Catholicism might've triggered a warped nostalgia for Good Queen Jane. If Jane had been allowed to live, those who became soured on Mary's reign might've (again!) used Jane as a figurehead and attempted another coup.

Mary had no choice but to kill her- no matter her personal inclinations toward mercy. It was, truly, a tragic necessity.

that's what i don't understand: why would they use jane as a figurehead when there was the more viable, more in right and as protestant figure of elizabeth out there?! i understand why northumberland wanted jane and not elizabeth (he figured elizabeth was harder to manipulate) but once he failed why would the other english people think of jane when there was elizabeth?
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on March 26, 2007, 02:44:40 PM
Her execution was unfair because she might have been a rebel, but it wasn't her choice.

Even an unwilling rival heir can still attract conspirators & rebels. Her regime was imposed by a minority faction & lasted only 9 days. Still: Mary's extreme Catholicism might've triggered a warped nostalgia for Good Queen Jane. If Jane had been allowed to live, those who became soured on Mary's reign might've (again!) used Jane as a figurehead and attempted another coup.

Mary had no choice but to kill her- no matter her personal inclinations toward mercy. It was, truly, a tragic necessity.

that's what i don't understand: why would they use jane as a figurehead when there was the more viable, more in right and as protestant figure of elizabeth out there?! i understand why northumberland wanted jane and not elizabeth (he figured elizabeth was harder to manipulate) but once he failed why would the other english people think of jane when there was elizabeth?

Sir Thomas Wyatt, when rebelling against the Spanish marriage, did hope to put Elizabeth on the throne and not Jane , but certainly Jane would still have remained a potential threat to Mary especially as Jane's father had joined the rebels.
The main reason Northumberland wanted Jane as queen was of course that he had  married his son to Jane and thus would have secured the crown for the "House of Dudley".
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ilyala on April 02, 2007, 12:26:07 PM
northumberland married his son to jane precisely for her claim to the throne and not the other way around (put forward her claim to the throne after she married his son). he chose to use jane rather than elizabeth for this scheme because it was probably already obvious that elizabeth wouldn't go for it.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on April 02, 2007, 04:23:51 PM
northumberland married his son to jane precisely for her claim to the throne and not the other way around (put forward her claim to the throne after she married his son).

I don't quite know whether I understand what you mean to say. Northumberland deliberately married his son to Jane precisely because of her claim to the throne - of course. Part of the scheme was to thus put his son on the throne as co-ruler.

So you assume Northumberland would have wanted Elizabeth as queen and that Jane was only his second best option simply because he knew Elizabeth wouldn't be "available" so to speak?

I don't actually think he ignored Elizabeth  because she would not have endorsed his scheme but rather because only by excluding both Mary and Elizabeth could he give his coup some sort of legality, arguing that Jane was the rightful successor because both of Henry's daughters had been pronounced illegitimate. But I'd have to check the evidence again.

Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: bell_the_cat on April 03, 2007, 05:51:39 PM
Yes, Henry's daughters were both counted as "illegitimate". There were, however four people ahead of Jane in the (strict) line of succession:

Mary Queen of Scots
Margaret, Countess of Lennox
Henry, Lord Darnley
Frances, Duchess of Suffolk (Jane's mum!)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on April 04, 2007, 02:43:26 AM
Yes, Henry's daughters were both counted as "illegitimate". There were, however four people ahead of Jane in the (strict) line of succession:

Mary Queen of Scots
Margaret, Countess of Lennox
Henry, Lord Darnley
Frances, Duchess of Suffolk (Jane's mum!)


Yes, quite right. The Countess of Suffolk however renounced her claim in favour of Jane of course.
But that's why I said "sort of legitimacy" when referring to Northumberland's scheme.
 Northumberland would have found it much more difficult legally though to exclude Mary on the grounds of illegitimacy without excluding Elizabeth also at the same time. So I think Elizabeth was never a real option for him when he had decided to prevent Mary from succeeding.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ilyala on April 05, 2007, 11:08:58 AM
I don't quite know whether I understand what you mean to say. Northumberland deliberately married his son to Jane precisely because of her claim to the throne - of course. Part of the scheme was to thus put his son on the throne as co-ruler.

So you assume Northumberland would have wanted Elizabeth as queen and that Jane was only his second best option simply because he knew Elizabeth wouldn't be "available" so to speak?

I don't actually think he ignored Elizabeth  because she would not have endorsed his scheme but rather because only by excluding both Mary and Elizabeth could he give his coup some sort of legality, arguing that Jane was the rightful successor because both of Henry's daughters had been pronounced illegitimate. But I'd have to check the evidence again.


both mary's and elizabeth's legitimacy was debatable. an unscrupulous man like northumberland could willingly eliminate mary and keep elizabeth in line - mary was illegitimate because her mother's marriage was not valid (due to her marriage to arthur tudor) and therefor elizabeth was legitimate because anne boleyn married a single man (his marriage was not valid). i'm sure that would have been more believable than the stretch that was to put jane on the throne (although it might not have worked anyway). however elizabeth already showed herself quite immune at such tricks with thomas seymour (even if record shows that she did like thomas seymour - he probably stood a better chance of manipulating her than northumberland) and was probably already quite prudent as a person. also she had no parents to influence her one way or the other (jane was constantly being beaten by hers - i believe i read that's how they got her to marry guildford dudley)... also she was a little older - at that age three years matter in maturity.

Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on April 10, 2007, 07:26:35 PM
Quote
I know she was 17 but she had a very intellectual head on her shoulders. I am not deriding the girl,i said she also was a victim. Besides which,we were all 17 once and I know that i went through a stage of thinking i knew it all. We have all been ther surely ;)


I'm going through that stage right now!! : - )

Anyway, I agree that Jane was a complete victim and I do pity her, but I dislike the way she derided Mary's religion when she saw one of Mary's ladies curtsying to the Host and said 'Is the Lady Mary in the chapel?' She comes across, I think, like Edward VI, as a bit of a stuck up, finishing-school prig. But I DO feel sorry for her.

I agree---Mary's mother, Katherine, was a devout Catholic and it was more because of her mother than anyone else that Mary chose to be Catholic. I thought that was very arrogant, her and Edward. But she reallywas an Innocent Traitor, as Alison Weir thinks her to be.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on March 25, 2009, 04:21:50 PM
New in thread - shall have to read through it to get answers.

Anyway, I saw the wonderful movie 'Lady Jane' on Lady Jane Grey's life and I know that se had her husband had no marriage at all, that it was not consumated and that it had several inaccuracies. Anyway, if I want answer's I'll have to look throughout this thread, which I intend to do.

Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: boleynfan on March 25, 2009, 08:32:12 PM
Yes, Henry's daughters were both counted as "illegitimate". There were, however four people ahead of Jane in the (strict) line of succession:

Mary Queen of Scots
Margaret, Countess of Lennox
Henry, Lord Darnley
Frances, Duchess of Suffolk (Jane's mum!)


If memory serves, though, Henry officially put his sister Mary's children ahead of Margaret's.  He was close to Mary and thought Margaret's marital history an embarrassment.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Prince_Lieven on March 27, 2009, 02:25:39 PM
Yes, Henry's daughters were both counted as "illegitimate". There were, however four people ahead of Jane in the (strict) line of succession:

Mary Queen of Scots
Margaret, Countess of Lennox
Henry, Lord Darnley
Frances, Duchess of Suffolk (Jane's mum!)


If memory serves, though, Henry officially put his sister Mary's children ahead of Margaret's.  He was close to Mary and thought Margaret's marital history an embarrassment.

I think his fear of a Scottish king becoming King of England was greater than anything to do with personal feelings for his sisters. I’ve always been curious as to why Lady Margaret Douglas – or, even more curiously, why her son, Lord Darnley – were excluded from the succession by Henry. In her biography of Mary I, Linda Porter says that Margaret quarrelled with Henry shortly before his death, about religion, and he was so enraged by her continued allegiance to the Pope that he cut her out of the succession, but I’ve never read it anywhere else. Darnley would’ve been an obvious successor to Henry’s own children – born in England, Catholic (as Henry considered himself, till death) and of impeccable lineage, even with a claim to the Scottish throne through his father.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ilyala on March 28, 2009, 08:44:59 AM
i've always thought it was weird that until elizabeth's reign, court intrigues did not include the margaret tudor line. i read nothing of margaret douglas and her son being part of anything during mary 1st's reign, during edward 6th's reign...

and it's weird because i read somewhere that the tragedy of edward 6th's reign was that if he died young the next in line to the throne was a long series of women... but henry darnley was already born by the time edward (and even henry) died...
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Prince_Lieven on March 28, 2009, 03:24:16 PM
i've always thought it was weird that until elizabeth's reign, court intrigues did not include the margaret tudor line. i read nothing of margaret douglas and her son being part of anything during mary 1st's reign, during edward 6th's reign...

and it's weird because i read somewhere that the tragedy of edward 6th's reign was that if he died young the next in line to the throne was a long series of women... but henry darnley was already born by the time edward (and even henry) died...

Lady Lennox and her family were in high favour during Mary I's reign and many people speculated that Mary would name Margaret as her heir. If my memory serves, I think Margaret was given precedence over Elizabeth at court.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Kimberly on March 28, 2009, 04:56:01 PM
Yes and didn't she cause some grief toward Elizabeth because she was exceptionally noisy and occupied the rooms above her.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on March 29, 2009, 01:57:28 PM
There'll  be a new book about the subject by Ives. Should be really interesting:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lady-Jane-Grey-Tudor-Mystery/dp/1405194138/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238352708&sr=8-6
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Prince_Lieven on March 30, 2009, 06:48:25 PM
Maybe I'm jumping the gun a little, but looks like it'll be another pro-Jane/anti-Mary book. I'd take issue with the statement from the little blurb - I woudn't call Jane 'one of the least studied figures of English history'. Plenty has been written about her (although most has been rubbish).  Also, I'd be interested to read his argument that Jane had 'strong legal grounds' for her claim to the throne - Edward VI's will could not overturn an act of parliament (in this case the 1544 Act of Succession) and in any case, as a minor, any will he made would have no validity in law. I know Northumberland wanted to change the law so Edward would achieve his majority at 15 (or 16?) but I'm not sure if this ever actually happened.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on April 01, 2009, 01:52:13 PM
Plenty has been written about her (although most has been rubbish).  Also, I'd be interested to read his argument that Jane had 'strong legal grounds' for her claim to the throne - Edward VI's will could not overturn an act of parliament (in this case the 1544 Act of Succession) and in any case, as a minor, any will he made would have no validity in law. I know Northumberland wanted to change the law so Edward would achieve his majority at 15 (or 16?) but I'm not sure if this ever actually happened.

But there hasn't been a serious individual study of hers, and as Ives is reknown for thorough research I'm having some expectations here. Nevertheless, I'm also skeptical about what these "strong legal grounds" might have been. To me the case seems quite clear.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Prince_Lieven on April 01, 2009, 05:14:20 PM
I'm almost certain Alison Plowden wrote a biography of her, I've not read it though. I'm inclinced towards the belief that although it certainly wasn't her idea to take the throne, but that once she did take it, she took on the role with a certain degree of enthusiasm, and probably would have become quite an autocratic monarch if she'd been given the chance. It's often forgotten that Mary had Jane sentenced to death without ever intending to have her executed, and it was only the Wyatt Rebellion (especially the involvement of the Duke of Suffolk) and the increasing influence of Simon Renard that eventually made her reluctantly sign the death warrant. Jane must have known when she took the throne that the price of failure was death.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mari on April 02, 2009, 01:00:55 AM
Didn't her Father-in-Law push the idea and pressure her into it? I remember reading somewhere they kept saying it was her duty....and of course I am sure they guaranteed her once She was crowned no one would rally behind a Catholic Princess! It was a gamble for the People surrounding her and I am not sure how pliable she was? How much is known about her actual ambition...?
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Prince_Lieven on April 02, 2009, 05:49:18 PM
Yes, Northumberland was behind the idea to make Jane queen, and initially she was highly reluctant, saying 'the crown is not my right and pleaseth me not; the Lady Mary is the rightful heir' or words to that effect. But once she accepted the fact that she was queen, she had no qualms about asserting her authority - when Mary's rebellion broke out, Northumberland wanted Suffolk sent to confront the rebels, but Jane insisted that he go himself. She also (if I remember right) ordered that the gates to the Tower be locked every night at 10pm and that the keys be given to her personally, and she told her husband that she wouldn't make him king. I think her initial reluctance gave way to a sort of martyred acceptance, and a belief that it was 'God's will', that she be queen.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: mcdnab on April 02, 2009, 06:04:46 PM

Under a strict interpretation of the law both Mary and Elizabeth were technically illiegitimate - both on the grounds that their parents marriage was invalid.
Mary due to the English view that the papal dispensation of her parents marriage was illegal and Ellizabeth on the ground that her parents marriage was declared invalid shortly before the murder of her motherl.
However in law their legitimacy was irrelevant as their claims relied on the third Henrician Act of Succession not on the simple fact that they were the King's daughters.

I don't quite know whether I understand what you mean to say. Northumberland deliberately married his son to Jane precisely because of her claim to the throne - of course. Part of the scheme was to thus put his son on the throne as co-ruler.

So you assume Northumberland would have wanted Elizabeth as queen and that Jane was only his second best option simply because he knew Elizabeth wouldn't be "available" so to speak?

I don't actually think he ignored Elizabeth  because she would not have endorsed his scheme but rather because only by excluding both Mary and Elizabeth could he give his coup some sort of legality, arguing that Jane was the rightful successor because both of Henry's daughters had been pronounced illegitimate. But I'd have to check the evidence again.


both mary's and elizabeth's legitimacy was debatable. an unscrupulous man like northumberland could willingly eliminate mary and keep elizabeth in line - mary was illegitimate because her mother's marriage was not valid (due to her marriage to arthur tudor) and therefor elizabeth was legitimate because anne boleyn married a single man (his marriage was not valid). i'm sure that would have been more believable than the stretch that was to put jane on the throne (although it might not have worked anyway). however elizabeth already showed herself quite immune at such tricks with thomas seymour (even if record shows that she did like thomas seymour - he probably stood a better chance of manipulating her than northumberland) and was probably already quite prudent as a person. also she had no parents to influence her one way or the other (jane was constantly being beaten by hers - i believe i read that's how they got her to marry guildford dudley)... also she was a little older - at that age three years matter in maturity.


Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ladyjanegreyref on April 04, 2009, 06:53:16 AM
Leanda de Lisle, author of 'The Sisters Who Would Be Queen: The Tragedy of Mary, Katherine and Lady Jane Grey' will be answering any questions you might have at my blog 'Lady Jane Grey Reference Guide Blog.'

http://ladyjanegreyref.livejournal.com/25617.html

Thanks.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on May 04, 2009, 07:55:24 PM
Jane Gray's death

(http://www.mtholyoke.edu/%7Erghosh/index/classwork/The%20Execution%20of%20Lady%20Jane%20Grey.jpg)

Lady Jane Gray

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_142cr8Gtn3A/RqTiUKVZz7I/AAAAAAAAA3Y/-Fxy6UIaQiE/s320/jane+gray.gif)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on May 04, 2010, 02:47:07 PM
Maybe I'm jumping the gun a little, but looks like it'll be another pro-Jane/anti-Mary book. I'd take issue with the statement from the little blurb - I woudn't call Jane 'one of the least studied figures of English history'. Plenty has been written about her (although most has been rubbish).  Also, I'd be interested to read his argument that Jane had 'strong legal grounds' for her claim to the throne - Edward VI's will could not overturn an act of parliament (in this case the 1544 Act of Succession) and in any case, as a minor, any will he made would have no validity in law. I know Northumberland wanted to change the law so Edward would achieve his majority at 15 (or 16?) but I'm not sure if this ever actually happened.


Ives exonerates Northumberland from the traditional view that it was his idea.

I have now read his study, and while I think it is a very good book, which raises interesting questions, I disagree with most of his theses.
Ives argues it was Edward’s idea to pass over his sisters and leave the crown to Jane. I agree that originally it was indeed Edward’s plan to disinherit Mary and Elizabeth because he wanted an all male succession and considered his half sisters illegitimate. This is strongly suggested by his original “deuice for the succession”. As stated here the crown was to go to the first male offspring born to any of the females from the Brandon line, that is to either Frances, her daughters  or Margaret Clifford. This is very much in keeping with Edward’s protestant mindset. He was certainly never the manipulated victim as which he has traditionally been presented.

But from here I disagree with Ives. To me all the evidence points to Northumberland having then persuaded Edward into leaving the crown directly to Jane since the original device would have been too impractical and absurd.   Ives, on the other hand, thinks Northumberland simply wanted to be loyal to his king and fulfill his wishes. Like Derek Wilson in The Uncrowned Kings of England, Ives considers the multiple marriages that took place in May 1553   "routine aristocratic alliances".  I find this and  the general total whitewash of the duke not at all convincing.

As to the legal grounds for Jane’s claim, according to Ives the statute from 1544 reinstating Mary and Elizabeth into the line of succession meant “setting aside the inheritance rights of legitimate heirs in favour of a bastard, so Edward by his device simply returned to common law.
Technically this may be so but the Act of Succession was the result of parliament having granted Henry VIII the right to name his successor. So Ives obviously denies the validity of such a right.

Has anyone read the book yet? Any comments?
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: ilyala on May 10, 2010, 06:03:41 AM
well if henry could decide his heirs, why couldn't edward? after all they were both kings...
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on May 10, 2010, 07:22:55 AM
well if henry could decide his heirs, why couldn't edward? after all they were both kings...

If this was the case then Jane Grey was the rightful queen of England.

Personally, I don't think Edward had the right to change the statute of 1544 because at 15 he was still a minor.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Rani on July 17, 2010, 06:36:23 PM
(http://i947.photobucket.com/albums/ad313/Isana1988/1589.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Lady Nikolaievna on July 18, 2010, 03:04:24 PM
A King could not be contrary to a former king's will, unless the person he indicated to be his sucessor was dead. In that case, Jane was only heir presumptive. Mary was the rightful heir, and Elizabeth was the next.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: RHB on July 28, 2010, 10:24:29 PM
I've read about her mother Frances Brandon! That woman... needed help! Doesn't just take the movie Lady Jane to figure that out! At least Frances hopefully knew better not to beat on her daughter... since as queen Jane could have her head if she wanted to!
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Silja on July 29, 2010, 04:09:49 PM
I've read about her mother Frances Brandon! That woman... needed help! Doesn't just take the movie Lady Jane to figure that out!

Leanda de Lisle and also Eric Ives draw a more balanced picture of her. In fact we know very little about her to be able to really judge her. She may not have been much worse than most aristocractic mothers.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: RHB on July 29, 2010, 05:55:00 PM
Okay... yeah that's true
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on August 03, 2010, 03:36:44 PM
Offering to her the throne
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/KaiserinAlzbeta/Queens/LadyJane.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on August 04, 2010, 02:45:20 PM
Lady Jane
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/KaiserinAlzbeta/Queens/Streathamladyjayne.jpg)
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/KaiserinAlzbeta/Queens/JGrey.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Mari on August 09, 2010, 03:00:50 AM
Beautiful Paintings Kaiserin Alzbeta Sissi  are these contemporary?
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on August 09, 2010, 02:07:59 PM
The one with the red dress is perhaps from 1590, the one below form 1620 and the one of offering the throne hasn't an exact date but it must be from the last years of 18th century or the first half of the 19th
Preparing to die
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/VictorianGowns/Flagg.jpg)
Alone
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/VictorianGowns/LadyJaneGrey.gif)
Another
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/VictorianGowns/Crown.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Lady Nikolaievna on August 09, 2010, 02:10:00 PM
In this last one, is the young man behind her Guilford Dudley?
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on August 09, 2010, 02:14:32 PM
Yes, he is.
The queen
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/VictorianGowns/Lady_Jane_Grey.jpg)
Praying
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/VictorianGowns/PrayJG.jpg)
Her excecution (this reminds me one very famous about the excecution of Anne Boleyn...)
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/VictorianGowns/Excecution.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on August 09, 2010, 02:19:01 PM
From 19th century
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/VictorianGowns/Inglesa.jpg)
Reading
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/VictorianGowns/Reina.jpg)
In royal robes
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/VictorianGowns/Royal.jpg)
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Lady Nikolaievna on August 09, 2010, 02:21:05 PM
Thank you :)
Nice pictures. Most of them are new for me.
Title: Re: Lady Jane Grey
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on August 10, 2010, 03:55:51 PM
You're welcome! XD
Here are more portraits about her...
Click here! (http://www.bitterwisdom.com/ladyjanegrey/past6.html)