Re: Lady Jane Grey

[ilyala]

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?

[Silja]

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".

[ilyala]

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.

[Silja]

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.

[bell_the_cat]

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!)

[Silja]

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.

[ilyala]

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.

[FaithWhiteRose]

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.

[Imperial_Grounds]

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.

[boleynfan]

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.

[Prince_Lieven]

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.

[ilyala]

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...

[Prince_Lieven]

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.

[Kimberly]

Yes and didn't she cause some grief toward Elizabeth because she was exceptionally noisy and occupied the rooms above her.

[Silja]

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