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?
