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

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Ella Kay

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?

LOL. I didn't mean to say that the Queen Mother was the sole provider of Tudor blood in the present royal family. I guess I should have said she also passed the Tudor bloodline to her daughter.

You are correct though - all English and British monarchs since Henry VII have carried his bloodline. I just thought it was interesting that the Queen Mother also carried it, giving Queen Elizabeth II a double-dose, so to speak.

I'll go back and correct that entry.

[Grace Angel]

Originally Posted by 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..

The Tudors were quite cold, true. I think people in positions of power or near positions of power had to be cold in the 16th century, especially in the reign of Henry VIII and during the reigns of Edward and Mary. Being cold was the only way to survive.

[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?

[Ella Kay]

Connecting this to the thread topic, could Jane Grey have been considered an heir apparent after Edward specifically willed the throne to her? Or was she always an heir presumptive, with the notion that Edward could marry and produce heirs, even as that looked more and more unlikely?

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by Ella Kay

Connecting this to the thread topic, could Jane Grey have been considered an heir apparent after Edward specifically willed the throne to her? Or was she always an heir presumptive, with the notion that Edward could marry and produce heirs, even as that looked more and more unlikely?

Lady Jane Grey was never Heiress Apparent. There was a chance, however slim, that Edward would marry and have children. There is also the question of whether Edward had the right to actually appoint his Heir.
Even Queen Elizabeth (the Second) was always Heiress Presumptive, even when it became apparent that her parents will not have any more children and therefore no younger brother could replace her in the line of the succession.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Ella Kay

Connecting this to the thread topic, could Jane Grey have been considered an heir apparent after Edward specifically willed the throne to her? Or was she always an heir presumptive, with the notion that Edward could marry and produce heirs, even as that looked more and more unlikely?

If Edward VI had the legal right to name his successor, and Lady Jane Grey was so named, then she would have been the Heir Presumptive. She would not have ever been the Heir Apparent because she was a female, and because both of her parents were still living at the time of Edward's death.

Should the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk have produced a son before Edward VI died, she would have been displaced in the line of succession and the brother would have been King, even if he was an infant.

If they had produced a son after Edward's death, and before Jane was crowned, the same would most likely be true. The son would have inherited the throne.

I think it would have been unlikely and more difficult to remove an anointed Queen, even if she had gained a brother, but that brother would have been her Heir Apparent - at least or until she had her own son.

[Elspeth]

The situation that Ilovebertie described hasn't happened in Britain. There'd be no reason for a female heir to be called Heir Presumptive if there was no way of displacing her, but it's a very unusual case, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens if such a thing occurs. There have been very few cases in English history of monarchs succeeding their grandfathers, and in the two cases I can think of off-hand (Richard II succeeding Edward III and George III succeeding George II), the successors were male.

[jonnydep]

i often wondered as to why this queen is referred to lady jane grey, the nine days queen. as on her accession to the throne, she was a dudley and not a grey ?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by jonnydep1

i often wonder as to why this queen is referred to lady jane grey, the nine days queen. as on her accession to the throne, she was a dudley and not a grey ?

Because her claim was through being born a Grey and not through being married to a Dudley.

This is like saying Victoria was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha rather than an Hanoverian or Elizabeth II was a Mountbatten rather than a Windsor. Their claims are through their Hanoverian/Windsor descent not through their marriages.

[Zonk]

Enough!

Let's get back to the topic if of this thread, which is Lady Jane Grey and not anyone else.

I understand the references to point out the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of Jane's "reign", as we all as previous rulers but we are done.

Let's just agree to call Jane's reign "disputed" and leave it at at that.

Furthermore, we need to keep the dicussion civil.

Any future off topic posts (as well as snarky comments) will be deleted without notice.

Any questions, please contact a British mod and/or TRF Administrator.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator