Lady Jane Grey, Queen for 9 days (1537-1554)

[felicia]

Some pictures of the beautiful and tragic Queen Jane:





She was actually going to be spared by Queen Mary I if Jane converted to the Catholic Faith. She refused and was devoted to Protestantism. Therefore she died for her faith, and is in a way a martyr. She was determined to die with dignity but when the blindfold was put on her she couldn't find the block to lay her head on, so she was helped to find it. It is so sad.

[Elspeth]

I've wondered that too. My guess is that the next Queen Regnant called Jane would be Jane I because Jane Grey never seems to show up on lists of monarchs. Plus, the royal family seems to avoid "unlucky" names, so there probably won't be a Jane any time soon. It doesn't seem to have been used even as a third or fourth name for a royal baby for a very long time.

[felicia]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I've wondered that too. My guess is that the next Queen Regnant called Jane would be Jane I because Jane Grey never seems to show up on lists of monarchs. Plus, the royal family seems to avoid "unlucky" names, so there probably won't be a Jane any time soon. It doesn't seem to have been used even as a third or fourth name for a royal baby for a very long time.

Well she does crop up on some lists of English monarchs. On Wikipedia's list of English monarchs she is there. I think Magnik is right - the next Queen Jane will have to be Jane II. I hope there is one, I think it has such a nice ring to it. It is true that 'Jane' has not been a popular choice of name in the British Royal Family for a long time. I think perhaps it might be a myth that they are avoiding 'unlucky' names like John and Jane on purpose. They probably are not, they just haven't been used much for no particular reason.

[magnik]

I think that maybe it wasn't unlucky name but sounds commoner not royal.

Btw. The name "Charles" (and Caroline) is unlucky too - after Charles I and II and the Bonnie Prince Charlie.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by magnik

I think that maybe it wasn't unlucky name but sounds commoner not royal.

Btw. The name "Charles" (and Caroline) is unlucky too - after Charles I and II and the Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Well, between Jane Grey and Queen Jane Seymour, it isn't a name with a very fortunate past.

Why do you think Charles II was unlucky?

[magnik]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Well, between Jane Grey and Queen Jane Seymour, it isn't a name with a very fortunate past.

Why do you think Charles II was unlucky?

Not exactly he was unlucky but just his name.
Charles II became the king after his father's execution. He was immediately proclaimed King in Scotland and Jersey on 5 and 16th February 1649. In Scotland he was like king in title only. After two years of negotiations with the Presbyterians before he was crowned as King of Scots (January 1, 1651). He spent 18 years in exile in France and returned to England in 1660 and was crowned as King of Egland (April 23, 1661). He has a nicknamed "The Merry Monarch" (or smth like that) - becouse of his string mistresses.

[HRH Kerry]

I thought the name "John" was considered unlucky. I guess I need to read up on Charles I & II.

[Elspeth]

Charles I got executed, which could be defined as unlucky, but Charles II seemed to do OK. I think John is probably considered unlucky, between the disastrous reign of King John and the early deaths of the youngest sons of Edward VII (Alexander John) and George V.

[felicia]

Well I don't think that the British Royal Family consider any name to be unlucky really. They just choose whatever name they like. People who say that there is some unlucky names say ''John'' is unlucky because primarily both Edward VII and George V had sons with the name John who died very young. I want there to be a Queen Jane II as William's granddaughter. I think Charles II might be considered unlucky because he made such a mess of the British Monarchy by failing to have a legitimate heir and leaving his terrible fundamentalist Catholic brother James to inherit the throne.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by RoyalistRiley

Interesting how Lady Jane was used as a pawn by her father-in-law to get the throne. Wouldn't it have been easier to seize power himself or did Jane have a strong (if any?) claime to the throne?

Jane was great-granddaughter of Henry VII. Nobody would support Northumberland. Those who supported Jane hoped they'll be able to control her, as she was a weak 16-year-old girl.

Originally Posted by felicia

I want there to be a Queen Jane II as William's granddaughter.

Jane's status is highly disputed and the next monarch named Jane might be just Queen Jane, not Jane II. We all know what happened: she was proclaimed queen on the basis of being proclaimed heir presumptive by a minor. Furthermore, according to the latest succession act, the legitimate heir was Mary. Jane didn't "reign" long enough to legitimaze her "reign" by being crowned. Therefore, she is rarely recognized as legitimate monarch.

Anyway, I'd rather see Mary III as William V's successor...

[Warren]

Lady Jane Grey appears in the list of Kings and Queens on the British Monarchy official website so we can safely assume she was "legit", although shortlived.
I note she's not referred to as 'Queen Jane' so there's an element of having it both ways.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by Warren

Lady Jane Grey appears in the list of Kings and Queens on the British Monarchy official website so we can safely assume she was "legit", although shortlived.

Please let's not start discussing how reliable and credible the official website is. For one, they claimed (or still claim) that the title of Prince of Wales can be held only by the monarch's eldest son (thus ignoring the existance of King George III). Now they call James I and VI a "United Kingdom Monarch", even though he reigned two centuries before the United Kingdom was created by the Act of Union 1800. They didn't even bother to drop in an s to make it "United Kingdoms Monarchs"

Who knows who writes that website; it surely isn't the Queen or any member of the Royal Family and they probably did not commission Simon Schama or David Starkey or any other respected scholar to write it for them, so it is of dubious authority in spite of its "official" status.

However, I do realize that Jane is regarded as monarch by some (those who believe in the Divine Right of Kings for example), but I think those are minority. I could be wrong though...

[Ella Kay]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Charles I got executed, which could be defined as unlucky, but Charles II seemed to do OK. I think John is probably considered unlucky, between the disastrous reign of King John and the early deaths of the youngest sons of Edward VII (Alexander John) and George V.

Maybe Charles II's lack of legitimate children makes some people think he was unlucky?

John's definitely on the "avoid" list, for the reasons you stated, Elspeth. I remember reading in Sarah Bradford's biography of Diana that she wanted to name Prince William "John" after her father, The Earl Spencer, but she was told she couldn't because of the associations with the name in the royal family.

I like the name Jane, but it's been so far off the royal family's radar that I can't imagine a royal child being given it, unlucky history or not. Though I may be proved wrong -- I still remember being shocked that little Viscount Severn was named James, after the unfortunate history of that name.

[Bella]

If I were a royal, I'd avoid the name Richard.

[felicia]

I'd like to see a King Richard IV of England.

[iowabelle]

Despite her gentleness, Jane was not opposed to the persecution of those whose religious views she did not share (ie., Catholics).

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

Despite her gentleness, Jane was not opposed to the persecution of those whose religious views she did not share (ie., Catholics).

While I agree with you that Jane was a committed Protestant, I find it hard to imagine how much persecution she could have been involved in during her 17 years of life.

She never held a position of power before she was declared Queen, after all, and that she only held for 9 days. Even then, she was under the thumb of Northumberland and Suffolk - the only thing she refused to do was to name Guilford Dudley as King Consort.

She is one of the more tragic figures of history, IMO.

[Zonk]

I agree that she is definitely a tragic figure at least IMO.

The life of Lady Jane Grey is just another example to me at least how women were treated as commodities and not human beings.

I mean can you imaginge placing your child in another household (which was common then) for the share purpose of striking a match so that two young people will get married. How crazy is that (again an example of the times). They were like what 10?!

And yes, I had read that Frances was unbearly cruel to Jane. Nothing much is said about how she treated her other daughters, but I am sure it was pretty much the same or just basic indifference.

Its amazing that Frances turned out the way she did considering who her mother was. Actually, now that I think about it...it was very much the Tudor way. My way or the highway. And a cold cold heart. Its a wonder that Elizabeth I turned out to be pretty decent as a ruler but she never married or had children so perhaps she realized that Tudors were meant to be parents.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Zonk

... I had read that Frances was unbearly cruel to Jane. Nothing much is said about how she treated her other daughters, but I am sure it was pretty much the same or just basic indifference.

The Sisters

Catherine Grey seemed to lead a colorful life of misadventure. She was married off to Henry Herbert, son of the Earl of Pembroke, on the same day that Jane was married to Guilford Dudley. But when Jane was proclaimed Queen, the Earl of Pembroke didn't want anything to do with the scandal. He had his son's marriage to Catherine annulled (it was not consummated).

Catherine did become prominent at Court as a potential heir to Elizabeth's throne, and she actually was the heir presumptive according to Henry VIII's will.

But she fell in love with Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, and secretly married him without Elizabeth's permission. There was no formal record of the marriage, which was considered invalid anyway without the Queen's permission being given. And the marriage was only revealed when she could no longer keep her pregnancy a secret.

The Queen was quite angry because she didn't approve of Edward Seymour. He had been sent to France with William Cecil, and Catherine was sent to the Tower. On his return from the Continent, Edward joined her there. Both of their children were born in the Tower - Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp of Hache, and Thomas Seymour. The Seymour marriage was annulled in 1562.

Edward and Catherine's grandson, William Seymour, became the 2nd Duke of Somerset, and had his own problems with a secret marriage to Arbella Stuart.

The Tudor Bloodline of Henry VII flows from the eldest son of Edward Seymour and Catherine Grey to the Seymour Dukes of Somerset, the Barons Beauchamp of Hache, the Barons Seymour of Trowbridge, the descendants of Sir Fernando Sutton, the Ward Barons Dudley, the Finch Earls of Winchilsea, the Boyle Earls of Burlington, the Bruce Earls of Elgin, the Brudenell Earls of Cardigan, the 1st Duke of Montagu, the Douglas Dukes of Queensbury, the descendants of the 5th Duke of Devonshire, and the descendants of the 3rd Duke of Portland.

In fact, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon the Queen Mother, being the great-great granddaughter of the 3rd Duke of Portland, delivered the blood of Henry VII to the present royal family when she became the mother of Queen Elizabeth II. (Edit: This is not to say that the Queen Mother is the sole provider of Tudor blood to the present royal family. All monarchs since the time of Henry VII have carried the Tudor bloodline and have been descended from him. I just think its interesting that the Queen Mother also contributed it to the present royal family.)

Mary Grey has been described as "deformed" and "very ugly". She was a very tiny woman, who also gained some prominence at Court as a potential heir to the throne after Catherine's death in 1568. She, however, did the unthinkable and married Mr. Thomas Keyes, a royal gatekeeper.

The Queen held Mary under house arrest until Thomas died in 1572. After that, she was released and was occasionally invited to Court. She died childless at the age of 33. Queen Elizabeth outlived her by more than 20 years.

[Ella Kay]

Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine

In fact, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon the Queen Mother, being the great-great granddaughter of the 3rd Duke of Portland, delivered the blood of Henry VII to the present royal family when she became the mother of Queen Elizabeth II.

I thought every monarch from Henry VIII on was descended from Henry VII. Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I were all descended from Henry VIII; James I and the Stuarts were descended from Henry VII's daughter Margaret, who married the King of the Scots; and the Hanovers were also descended from Margaret through the Stuart line. Even Jane Grey was descended from Henry VII through his daughter Mary, who married Charles Brandon. So surely Henry VII's blood was present in the bloodline of every monarch from 1485, when Henry VII snatched the crown, to the present, right?