The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 06-18-2009, 03:09 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
1. It's not a book, it's a large number of books.
2. Female cats and female ants are also known as queens, which doesn't make them heads of state.
3. Anyone could sign documents as queen or king and that wouldn't make them monarchs, so it's not prudent to include her in the list from that standpoint alone.

Her short "reign" was historically significant only because it was an example of an usurper. Of course it should be discounted based solely on legality! Saying that one was a monarch while admitting that she wasn't legally a monarch is simply absurd! Anyone can proclaim himself or herself a monarch, but only one person can legally be monarch. Mary became monarch upon Edward's death because the latest succession act made her first in the line of succession. She was legally monarch from the moment he died until the moment she died.
No matter what the argument, Jane Grey was declared Queen of England on 10 July 1553. Her short reign is significant because it was the first time in English history that a woman was named Queen Regnant. During the course of that nine days, Jane refused to name Guilford Dudley as king by letters patent, instead offering to make him Duke of Clarence - and she deferred to Parliament with this decision.

This significant detail is much too often overlooked by a great number of people, including authors and historians. If Jane was not recognized as Queen by Parliament, then why would she defer to Parliament in the first place? And why would Parliament consider such a deferment by someone they did not recognize as Queen?

The fact is, Parliament did not declare Mary the rightful Queen of England until 19 July 1553 - after she had gained enough support to ride into London.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
1. I do not recall reading about an act of parliament that made Matilda the rightful heir. Both of them claimed that Henry I gave them succession rights. Stephen was crowned king by the religious authorities (which made him the legitimate ruler) and Stephen won the war. Therefore, Stephen was an usurper who managed to become a legitimate monarch, while Matilda failed.
And you won't ever read about an Act of Parliament that made Matilda the rightful heir to the throne. That's because the first elected Parliament was summoned by Simon de Montfort in 1265, almost 100 years after her death.

By the terms of Henry I's will, Matilda was to succeed him to the throne. His barons were twice made to swear allegiance to Matilda while Henry reigned, as well as sworn to accept her as Henry's heir.

She expected to ascend the throne because she was the senior claimant through her paternal line, while Stephen of Blois' claim was through his mother.

After the death of Henry I, Stephen usurped the throne with the support of most of the barons. Only Matilda's gender and her marriage into the House of Anjou, made it possible for him to gain the necessary support to seize the throne. And in the process, Stephen broke the oaths he made to defend Matilda's right to succeed Henry I.

Eventually, of course, Stephen acknowledged the rights of Matilda's son Henry to inherit the Crown, in the Treaty of Wallingford of 1153.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
2. Henry IV was crowned an recognized by the parliament - therefore, he was a legitimate ruler.
Henry IV's legitimacy is questionable. Richard II was the crowned and anointed King of England, who already had an heir presumptive in Edmund de Mortimer. Richard and Henry, though cousins, had never had an easy relationship, and Richard banished him from England in 1398.

After the death of John of Gaunt in early 1399, Henry returned to England while Richard was on a military campaign in Ireland. He gained enough power and support to have himself declared king in Richard's absence, and when Richard returned, Henry had him imprisoned. He also effectively by-passed Edmund de Mortimer, who had a better claim to the throne that he did.

Henry was crowned on 13 October 1399. Richard II didn't die until 14 February 1400.

So I fail to see your argument that there can only be one legal monarch at a time. That entirely depends on which side you're standing on. If by legal, you mean a crowned and anointed King, then in this instance there were two living at the same time. I would point out that until Richard II's death, he was the legal monarch of the realm, and Henry IV was the usurper, since his coronation occurred before Richard died.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
3. Henry VII won the war, was crowned by religious authorities and was recognized as monarch by the parliament - therefore, he was a legitimate ruler.
Henry VII was also a usurper that won the Crown through "right of conquest". The entire Tudor dynasty had a questionable legitimacy, and they were all continually obsessed with that issue.

The only thing Richard III had to do to keep his throne was to stay alive. Unfortunately, his death at Bosworth effectively ended the War of the Roses, and the Lancaster line came out on top. It must be said, however, that though both sides descended from John of Gaunt, the Yorkists had the senior claim to the throne.. meaning Richard III was the senior claimant.

Henry VII's claim was tenous at best, because it came through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, a woman, and was based on a lineage of illegitimate succession. The Beauforts were disinherited from the succession by Letters Patent of Henry IV, who was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt. Margaret Beaufort was the great-granddaughter of John, and though her line had been legitimated after John of Gaunt's marriage to Katherine Swynford, they were barred from the succession.

Margaret, Countess of Salisbury's family were too weak to challenge Henry VII, even though they had a higher claim, and Henry VIII effectively neutralized them by killing off the Pole family one by one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
4. Elizabeth's husband was an usurper who managed to become a legitimate ruler by having himself crowned. Elizabeth herself was crowned three days after him. Thus, they were briefly legitimate king and queen.
Elizabeth of Bohemia's husband, Frederick V, was not a usurper of the Bohemian throne. He was the leader of the Protestant Union, and was offered the crown in 1619, by the Protestant estates and nobility of Bohemia.

They chose him because of his position, but his allies failed to support him militarily by signing the Treaty of Ulm in 1620. He was defeated at the Battle of White Mountain by the Hapsburgs, effectively ending his reign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
Since you are repeating yourself, I can repeat myself: I can have someone proclaim me Arch-emperor of Europe and sign some documents as such.
Of course, it is true you can call yourself anything you like. And you can sign documents in any way you see fit.. but I fail to see how this has any bearing on the history we are discussing.

If you want to debate the history, then it is prudent to know enough about the subject at hand, and its equally important to be impartial in dealing with the facts. The history of England and its monarchy is often subjective, and there are no clear-cut lines of demarcation when dealing with its early monarchs.

And regarding the Emperor of the United States..

Joshua Abraham Norton was a highly eccentric, but well-beloved citizen of San Francisco, who even with his psychological problems, was sometimes a visionary (calling for a League of Nations, which eventually came true). He was honored by the Army post at the Presidio, and was saluted by the policemen of San Francisco. Was he the Emperor of the United States? No. But he never shed anyone's blood, robbed anyone, and he despoiled no country.. which cannot be said of the early monarchs of England.

Personally, I don't understand why my entries in this forum illicit ill-feeling among a few of you. I have simply stated the facts as I know them to be, and I welcome a logical and reasonable debate with anyone who can point out or produce facts that I may not have uncovered in my studies.

The sarcasm, however, makes me uncomfortable.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-18-2009, 06:03 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
So much written, so little proven. But thanks for history lesson!

(I know that the first elected parliament was summoned in 1265. I mentioned it to highlight the fact that succession during Matilda's lifetime was not carved in stone as it was during Lady Jane Grey's lifetime)

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
No matter what the argument, Jane Grey was declared Queen of England on 10 July 1553. Her short reign is significant because it was the first time in English history that a woman was named Queen Regnant.
No matter what the arguement, Mary I was monarch de iure since Edward VI's death on 6 July and monarch de facto since 19 July. Mary I was also proclaimed queen regnant on Edward VI's death by her own supporters. Mary I entered London and became de facto monarch 13 days later. Jane herself was never de iure or de facto monarch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
During the course of that nine days, Jane refused to name Guilford Dudley as king by letters patent, instead offering to make him Duke of Clarence - and she deferred to Parliament with this decision.

This significant detail is much too often overlooked by a great number of people, including authors and historians. If Jane was not recognized as Queen by Parliament, then why would she defer to Parliament in the first place? And why would Parliament consider such a deferment by someone they did not recognize as Queen?
Please prove that Parliament considered such a deferment. By this, I mean giving me links to books found on Google Book Search which say that the parliament considered the deferment by the woman whom they recognized as queen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
The fact is, Parliament did not declare Mary the rightful Queen of England until 19 July 1553 - after she had gained enough support to ride into London.
The fact is: Parliament did not declare Jane the heiress or the rightful Queen of England. They never did that. Parliament did recognize Mary as the rightful heir in case Edward VI died childless and they did eventually recognize her as the rightful Queen of England.

Also, I would kindly ask you not to underline and bold your text too much because it becomes unreadable. People generally don't bother reading unreadable text
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-19-2009, 10:10 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
The posts discussing the Windsor/Windsor-Mountbatten surname have been moved to the Windsor/Mountbatten thread.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-19-2009, 10:56 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
No matter what the arguement, Mary I was monarch de iure since Edward VI's death on 6 July and monarch de facto since 19 July. Mary I was also proclaimed queen regnant on Edward VI's death by her own supporters. Mary I entered London and became de facto monarch 13 days later. Jane herself was never de iure or de facto monarch.
In British history, books and school lessons, Lady Jane Grey was Queen for 9 days, so I believe you are incorrect.

Lady Jane Grey

Edward died on 6th July 1553. Four days later, Jane was proclaimed queen

BBC - History - Lady Jane Grey (1537 - 1554)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-19-2009, 01:40 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
So much written, so little proven. But thanks for history lesson!
Evidently I have proven something, since there is no answering argument from you regarding my statements on the subjects of Matilda of England and Stephen of Blois; Henry IV and Richard II; the succession of Henry VII; or Elizabeth of Bohemia and Frederick V.

Since you offer no opposing viewpoint on these subjects, I can only assume that you have conceded that I am right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
(I know that the first elected parliament was summoned in 1265. I mentioned it to highlight the fact that succession during Matilda's lifetime was not carved in stone as it was during Lady Jane Grey's lifetime)
If the succession was "carved in stone during Lady Jane Grey's lifetime", as you put it, then I wonder how she was able to succeed to the throne in the first place. Obviously, the succession was not carved in stone.

Several Acts of Parliament passed in the reign of Henry VIII, that encouraged the theory that the succession was in the Sovereign's power of appointment. By the 28th Hen. VIII, it was limited to the issue that might arise from Henry's marriage to Queen Jane (Seymour), and in default thereof it was enacted
"..that your highness shall have full and plenar power and authority to give, dispose, appoint, assign, declare, and limit by your letters patent under your great seal, or else by your last will made in writing, and signed with your most gracious hand, at your only pleasure, from time to time hereafter, the Imperial Crown of this Realm."

It was this resolution that gave the Duke of Northumberland and his protestant allies the idea that the succession could be changed, by-passing the Roman Catholic Lady Mary. Of course, they also had to by-pass the Lady Elizabeth, since both women were legally illegitimate.

Edward VI issued Letters Patent for the Limitation of the Crown, specifically naming Jane Grey in the line of succession and eliminating both his half-sisters. The Letters Patent were signed by:

Great Officers of State and Peers: Archbishop of Canterbury; the Lord Chancellor (Bishop of Ely); the Lord Treasurer (Marquess of Worcester); the Great Master of the Household (Northumberland); the Lord Privy Seal (Earl of Bedford); Duke of Suffolk; Marquess of Northampton; Earls of Arundel, Oxford, Westmorland, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Huntingdon and Pembroke; the Lord Admiral; the Lord Chamberlain; the Bishop of London; the Lords Abergavenny, Cobham, Grey de Wilton, Windsor, Bray, Wentworth, Rich and Willoughby de Parham.

Secretaries of State: Sir William Petre, Sir William Cecil and Sir John Cheke.

Judges: the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Master of Rolls.

The Solicitor-General, John Gosnold.

Privy Councillors: Sir John Mason, Sir Ralph Sadler, Sir Richard Sackville, Sir Edward North, Sir Anthony St. Leger, Sir William Paget and Sir Richard Southwell.

The Lord Mayor of London, Sir George Barnes.

As well as by the eldest sons of peers and the Knights of the King's Privy Chamber.

Edward VI also restated the terms of the letters patent in his will, and both documents were created in his understanding that the succession could be changed according to the will of the Sovereign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
No matter what the arguement, Mary I was monarch de iure since Edward VI's death on 6 July and monarch de facto since 19 July. Mary I was also proclaimed queen regnant on Edward VI's death by her own supporters. Mary I entered London and became de facto monarch 13 days later. Jane herself was never de iure or de facto monarch.
This statement actually made me laugh. It appears you do not know the difference between de jure and de facto, so I am surprised that you would use either term in trying to prove a point. There is a distinction between these two terms.

While you are correct that Mary I was the de jure monarch after Edward VI, she was never a de facto monarch at all. This term would not be applied to her, since her status de jure was already established.

Lady Jane Grey was the de facto monarch after Edward VI. She was never the de jure monarch.

And for your future reference, here are the definitions of both terms:

de jure - by right; according to law.

de facto - existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not; Actually; in fact; in reality; as, a king de facto, -- distinguished from a king de jure, or by right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
Please prove that Parliament considered such a deferment. By this, I mean giving me links to books found on Google Book Search which say that the parliament considered the deferment by the woman whom they recognized as queen.
Here I do concede I must edit my previous question. As Queen, Jane did defer to Parliament on her refusal to name Guilford Dudley king. However, there appears to be no extant records to confirm that Parliament was in session during the nine days she was Queen. The last recorded beginning session of Parliament was in 1552, while Edward was still alive, so it cannot be ascertained whether that Parliament remained in session or was dismissed prior to his death.

It must be said, however, that a Circular Letter was sent to the Lieutenants of Counties, announcing the Accession of the Lady Jane to the Crown, and the extant literary remains of Queen Jane bear witness to the fact that she was the ruler of England during those nine days.

The Privy Council, in a letter to the Lady Mary, dated 9 July 1553, informed her that "our sovereign lady Queen Jane is, after the death of our sovereign lord Edward VI, invested and possessed with the just and right title in the Imperial Crown of this Realm, not only by good order of old ancient good laws of this realm, but also by our late Sovereign lord's letters patent, signed with his own hand, and sealed with the great seal of England, in presence of the most part of the nobles, councillors, judges, with divers other grave and sage personages assenting and ascribing to the same."

Even Queen Mary acknowledged Jane's reign, though she was an usurper, by an Act of Parliament passed shortly after Mary's accession (1 Mary cap.iv.). This act declared that private instruments and writings bearing date in the reign of Queen Jane, "since the 6th of July last past, and before the 1st of August then next following, " were made good and effectual in law. The same Act also declared that any letters patent, gifts or leases given by Jane during that period were utterly void.

If Queen Mary acknowledged Jane's reign, then her place in the list of english monarchs should not be a question. Nor does her status as an usurper exclude her, as Henry IV and Henry VII were also usurpers, who remain in that list.

Incidentally, my sources are largely drawn from the Loseley Manuscripts; the Harleian Library; the writings of Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas, Francis C. Laird, Henry Ellis, Peter de Vere Beauclerk-Dewar, and Kimball G. Everingham, among others.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-19-2009, 02:03 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
In British history, books and school lessons, Lady Jane Grey was Queen for 9 days, so I believe you are incorrect.
I wholeheartedly agree with you SkyDragon.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-19-2009, 03:27 PM
Grace Angel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa, United States
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-19-2009, 04:51 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Her short "reign" was historically significant only because it was an example of an usurper. Of course it should be discounted based solely on legality! Saying that one was a monarch while admitting that she wasn't legally a monarch is simply absurd! Anyone can proclaim himself or herself a monarch, but only one person can legally be monarch. Mary became monarch upon Edward's death because the latest succession act made her first in the line of succession. She was legally monarch from the moment he died until the moment she died.
Throughout much of the Wars of the Roses there were two kings in the country. While it seems that one was legally king, then the other, then the first, then the second, IMO that just tends to show that the law back then was whatever the rich and powerful wanted it to be.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-20-2009, 09:50 AM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
In British history, books and school lessons, Lady Jane Grey was Queen for 9 days, so I believe you are incorrect.
All credible British historians argue about her status. No academic would say that Jane was undisputably a monarch. Calling Jane a "Nine Days Queen" or "Queen for Nine Days" surely adds a romantic feeling to the story, but it doesn't make her a monarch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
Evidently I have proven something, since there is no answering argument from you regarding my statements on the subjects of Matilda of England and Stephen of Blois; Henry IV and Richard II; the succession of Henry VII; or Elizabeth of Bohemia and Frederick V.

Since you offer no opposing viewpoint on these subjects, I can only assume that you have conceded that I am right.
Why should I continue discussing something which is:

a) off topic and therefore against the rules of the forum,
b) irrelevant, because there were no succession rules set by parliament before the Tudors?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post

If the succession was "carved in stone during Lady Jane Grey's lifetime", as you put it, then I wonder how she was able to succeed to the throne in the first place. Obviously, the succession was not carved in stone.
It's simple: she did not succeed to the throne because the succession was carved in stone. Mary I succeeded, which was confirmed by her proclamation (which also denounced and revoked Jane's proclamation as being coerced) and her coronation.

James D. Taylor says in his book ("Documents of Lady Jane Grey") that the Privy Council, completely subjugated and terrorized by Northumberland, decided to proclaim Lady Jane queen. Lady Jane Grey was therefore neither a de iure monarch (her proclamation being unlawful) nor de facto monarch (her being a puppet of her father-in-law).

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
Several Acts of Parliament passed in the reign of Henry VIII, that encouraged the theory that the succession was in the Sovereign's power of appointment. By the 28th Hen. VIII, it was limited to the issue that might arise from Henry's marriage to Queen Jane (Seymour), and in default thereof it was enacted
"..that your highness shall have full and plenar power and authority to give, dispose, appoint, assign, declare, and limit by your letters patent under your great seal, or else by your last will made in writing, and signed with your most gracious hand, at your only pleasure, from time to time hereafter, the Imperial Crown of this Realm."

It was this resolution that gave the Duke of Northumberland and his protestant allies the idea that the succession could be changed, by-passing the Roman Catholic Lady Mary. Of course, they also had to by-pass the Lady Elizabeth, since both women were legally illegitimate.

Edward VI issued Letters Patent for the Limitation of the Crown, specifically naming Jane Grey in the line of succession and eliminating both his half-sisters.

Edward VI also restated the terms of the letters patent in his will, and both documents were created in his understanding that the succession could be changed according to the will of the Sovereign.
According to Jennifer Loach and Dale Hoak, all the people who signed that document had been bullied into doing so by Northumberland. That's what all of them said.

W.K. Jordan and Jennifer Loach both state that Edward VI's device was not only unconstitutional in its violation of Henry VIII's Third Succession Act of 1543 but demonstrably the product of hurried and illogical thinking.

Anyway, if Letters Patent for the Limitation of the Crown were able to alter the succession set by Parliament, why didn't the Crown devolve upon Jane's mother, who had not been excluded from the succession?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post

This statement actually made me laugh. It appears you do not know the difference between de jure and de facto, so I am surprised that you would use either term in trying to prove a point. There is a distinction between these two terms.

While you are correct that Mary I was the de jure monarch after Edward VI, she was never a de facto monarch at all. This term would not be applied to her, since her status de jure was already established.

Lady Jane Grey was the de facto monarch after Edward VI. She was never the de jure monarch.

And for your future reference, here are the definitions of both terms:

de jure - by right; according to law.

de facto - existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not; Actually; in fact; in reality; as, a king de facto, -- distinguished from a king de jure, or by right.
Again, you are insulting my knowledge. I never said that any of your statements made me laugh or claimed that you don't know something, even though I do not agree with all of your statements. I do not see where exactly I misused either of the terms and you haven't made an effort to show me my mistake. Please be kind enough to keep this a civilized discussion, without insults.

Anyway, I do not understand your claim that Mary I was never a de facto monarch. Your own definition says that de facto means "existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not", so she could have been (and was) a monarch de iure and de facto.

Jane was neither de facto nor de iure monarch. After Edward VI's death and probably before, the de facto monarch was the Duke of Northumberland. Lady Jane Grey never exercised regal power. She was a puppet of her father-in-law, who had her proclaimed and who had already ruled England.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post

Here I do concede I must edit my previous question. As Queen, Jane did defer to Parliament on her refusal to name Guilford Dudley king. However, there appears to be no extant records to confirm that Parliament was in session during the nine days she was Queen. The last recorded beginning session of Parliament was in 1552, while Edward was still alive, so it cannot be ascertained whether that Parliament remained in session or was dismissed prior to his death.

It must be said, however, that a Circular Letter was sent to the Lieutenants of Counties, announcing the Accession of the Lady Jane to the Crown, and the extant literary remains of Queen Jane bear witness to the fact that she was the ruler of England during those nine days.

The Privy Council, in a letter to the Lady Mary, dated 9 July 1553, informed her that "our sovereign lady Queen Jane is, after the death of our sovereign lord Edward VI, invested and possessed with the just and right title in the Imperial Crown of this Realm, not only by good order of old ancient good laws of this realm, but also by our late Sovereign lord's letters patent, signed with his own hand, and sealed with the great seal of England, in presence of the most part of the nobles, councillors, judges, with divers other grave and sage personages assenting and ascribing to the same."

Even Queen Mary acknowledged Jane's reign, though she was an usurper, by an Act of Parliament passed shortly after Mary's accession (1 Mary cap.iv.). This act declared that private instruments and writings bearing date in the reign of Queen Jane, "since the 6th of July last past, and before the 1st of August then next following, " were made good and effectual in law. The same Act also declared that any letters patent, gifts or leases given by Jane during that period were utterly void.
As I said, her proclamation was revoked and denounced. All people who signed the unconstitutional device of succession said they were forced to do so.

The last paragraph does not prove that she was a monarch either. Actually, it specifically says that all decisions made by Jane (ie. Northumberland) were null and void. Private instruments and writings bearing date between 6 July and 1 August would be alright, because they bore date in the reign of Mary I (which started at the moment of Edward VI's death). I see nothing pro-Jane here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
If Queen Mary acknowledged Jane's reign, then her place in the list of english monarchs should not be a question. Nor does her status as an usurper exclude her, as Henry IV and Henry VII were also usurpers, who remain in that list.

Incidentally, my sources are largely drawn from the Loseley Manuscripts; the Harleian Library; the writings of Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas, Francis C. Laird, Henry Ellis, Peter de Vere Beauclerk-Dewar, and Kimball G. Everingham, among others.
Queen Mary I acknowledged Jane as monarch? Oh, please. As soon as Mary I imprisoned Jane, the proclamation of the latter was denounced and revoked as being coerced (and it was coearced). Northumberland himself revoked and denounced Jane's proclamation, even though he was the one who had her proclaimed.

My sources are largely drawn from the "Documents of Lady Jane Grey" (Taylor), "Edward VI" (Loach), "Rehabilitating the Duke of Northumberland: Politics and Political Control, 1549–53" (Hoak), "Edward VI: The Threshold of Power. The Dominance of the Duke of Northumberland" (Jordan), "Reform and Reformation" (Elton), and others. It's interesting that you make your own conclusions based on primary sources and 200-300-year-old sources. I rely on modern secondary sources, for I do not consider myself learned enough to study primary sources myself. In other words, I consider academics to be smarter than me. I also believe that modern sources are more neutral and better researched than those from the 18th and 19th century. They are so biased that one could argue that Empress Matilda was not the rightful heir of England based on some of those sources
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-20-2009, 10:07 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,375
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
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-20-2009, 10:08 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
All credible British historians argue about her status. No academic would say that Jane was undisputably a monarch. Calling Jane a "Nine Days Queen" or "Queen for Nine Days" surely adds a romantic feeling to the story, but it doesn't make her a monarch.
I must remember to write to Eton, Cheltenham, Harrow, Stowe, Winchester, Ampleforth (to name a few that I or my relatives have personal knowledge of) and the universities and inform them that the authors and academics they use are merely putting a 'romantic' feeling to the facts they teach.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-15-2011, 08:38 PM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,318
Queen Mary I did the same to Jane that little sister Elizabeth did to cousin Mary Stuart ....behead your cousin. Because she is getting in the way of getting the throne of England . But seriously did Jane really deserve to be killed? Would she have made a good queen than Mary (killing Protestants and making England catholic) ?
__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-15-2011, 08:41 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,375
Unfortunately for Jane her father (and those who didn't want a Catholic Queen) decided to try to overthrow Mary in Jane's name. That's really why she was killed. At first, Mary wasn't going to kill Jane but in order to appease the Spanish (as Mary was looking to marry Phillip) and quell the discontent Jane had to go.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-16-2011, 12:01 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Mary delayed the execution of Jane and did not want to do it but Jane's death was seen as a necessary political move to shore up Mary's claim to the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-16-2011, 12:04 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,375
Basically as long as Jane was alive and a potential legtimate Protestant heir (remember many consider Elizabeth to be an illegitimte child with no right to the throne) she was a threat.

Many people would have taken arms in her name...whether she agreed to it or not. A primary reason a lot of people (think Margaret of Salisbury) were killed during the early reign of the Tudors.

Jane was definitely a victim of her times, poor thing. A political pawn of her parents who had no thoughts or care for her safety. How selfish was her mother? You are the legtimate heir before Jane, why don't you be Queen? Perhaps because she didn't want risk her own life. Selfish woman.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-16-2011, 12:22 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Yes, she was sacrificed by her family to the greedy ambition of the Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley, her father-in-law. I believe that he forced Edward VI to name Jane as his heir, although many thought (rightly so) that this was illegal because of his young age and because it went against an act of Parliament, which recognized Mary as the heiress presumptive while Edward lived.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-16-2011, 09:31 AM
Lucrezia's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Basically as long as Jane was alive and a potential legtimate Protestant heir (remember many consider Elizabeth to be an illegitimte child with no right to the throne) she was a threat.

Many people would have taken arms in her name...whether she agreed to it or not. A primary reason a lot of people (think Margaret of Salisbury) were killed during the early reign of the Tudors.

Jane was definitely a victim of her times, poor thing. A political pawn of her parents who had no thoughts or care for her safety. How selfish was her mother? You are the legtimate heir before Jane, why don't you be Queen? Perhaps because she didn't want risk her own life. Selfish woman.
Indeed. And quite Machiavellian. I agree with you, Jane was a victim of her times and of her own family. But, though I'm not a fan of Mary I, it has been a case of Hobson's choice for her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-16-2011, 11:25 AM
Maura724's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, United States
Posts: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Unfortunately for Jane her father (and those who didn't want a Catholic Queen) decided to try to overthrow Mary in Jane's name. That's really why she was killed. At first, Mary wasn't going to kill Jane but in order to appease the Spanish (as Mary was looking to marry Phillip) and quell the discontent Jane had to go.
Actually, Wyatt's Rebellion wasn't in Jane's name. Jane was never mentioned - it was simply a rebellion against Mary's decision to marry Philip of Spain. However, since Jane's father was an important participant, it looked as though it was an effort to put Jane back on the throne. Realizing that Jane was a threat just by existing, and being pressed by the Spanish (the Habsburg Emperor was refusing to let Philip go to England for the marriage until Jane was gone), Mary felt she had no choice but to execute.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
biography, british history, earl of northumberland, frances brandon, guilford dudley, lady jane grey, line of succession, queen jane, queen mary i, queen regnant, religion, tudor


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photos Of King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie earlier days... Julia King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie 241 03-09-2014 08:13 PM
Lady Jane Fellowes (née Spencer) and family CasiraghiTrio Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 47 12-14-2013 10:19 PM
Did the Queen act appropriately in the days following Diana's death? Duchess Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 528 09-09-2011 10:49 AM
Meaning of Grey Squares.. CasiraghiTrio Forum Announcements and Admin 8 03-29-2011 02:16 AM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:51 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]