Author Topic: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537  (Read 28850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Guest
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2006, 01:09:42 AM »
She could have used her position as expectant mother of Henry's heir (girl or boy, thanks to Mary's kind statement about her parents marriage) to change Henry's mind about things) but she didn't. She made one intervention, Henry said no and she shut up!

It's difficult to see what concessions Jane could have got for the Catholics. In doctrine England remained a Catholic country until 1547, when Jane's brothers (!) changed things. The only possibilities were repealing the Act of Supremacy (and thus recognising the Pope as Head of the Church) or not going ahead with the Dissolution of the monasteries. I can't imagine Jane even suggesting the first to the paranoid Henry. As for the second, too many of the nobility/ministers had an interest to stop this process. Major beneficiaries being Jane's own family.

She might have encouraged Henry in stamping out Protestant heresies. Maybe more would have been burnt if she had lived!


  • Guest
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2006, 07:40:03 AM »
she was just too bland a character for me to remember when i learned about henry years ago. the only thing that distinguished was that she had a son. big deal
selina                           xxxxxxxxx

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2006, 12:19:34 PM »
I think on the surface she seems to be less than she really was. She is more than what we see in her, for sure. She never got the chance to play much of a role, but I think she was more than just the demure white skinned, wasp lipped lady of the portraits.She may have wanted to play that role for a long time though.


  • Guest
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #48 on: March 17, 2008, 10:52:39 AM »
Ah, Iohanna Regina.

First of all, Jane Seymour never thought of Mary Tudor as a threat. She truly loved the princess, seven years her younger, and was loved by her in return. Mary was tormented with grief when Jane died, and acted as the chief mourner at her funeral. During Jane's time as queen, she went out of her way to bring Mary back to court. There is evidence to prove that she and the princess were friends before the usurption of Anne Boleyn went underway. And was Jane stupid? No. One doesn't have to be educated to observe the school of hard knocks within royal walls. She was smart enough to know to appear meek and quiet; frankly, she sacrificed a great deal for both her ambition and the happiness of others.

This is a very poorly written ramble produced by a girl who has to use the necessary.


  • Guest
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2008, 04:30:36 AM »
It is true that Jane intervened in public with Henry to ask for the monasteries to be restored and to ask for mercy for the leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace. However Henry rejected both these requests

Yes, seeing the two wives in front of you put aside (in different ways) certainly meant to Jane...back off  and that was the smart thing to do!


  • Guest
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #50 on: July 17, 2010, 06:32:45 PM »

Lady Nikolaievna

  • Guest
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #51 on: July 17, 2010, 11:37:39 PM »
I agree. Jane knew that, even though Henry said he loved her, she could be put away. He also said he loved Katherine of Aragón and Anne Boleyn. Diverced and beheaded.