Lady Jane Grey, Nine Day Queen (1537-1554)

[HM Queen Catherine]

I believe her parents were said to be quite cruel to her.. her mother at least even before she tried to claim the throne. To them, she was just something to use for their own ambitions. So it's not surprising they didn't beg for her life. None of the Grey sisters were lucky. Jane as a name is never used much anymore by non royals and hasn't been used in the RF since forever, and is unlikely to make a comeback.

Frances Brandon was a very cold and highly ambitious woman, whose marriage to Henry Grey was well-matched. She was also a woman extremely disappointed that she had not borne a living son and heir for her husband.

She was especially cruel to Jane, who was the eldest and bore the brunt of her parents ill treatment. Jane was under 10 years old, when in 1546 she was sent to live with Queen Katherine Parr. The Queen was very kind to Jane and they shared a close bond with each other.

But her parents had a motive even for sending her to the Queen. They were trying to arrange a marriage for her with Edward VI and put her on the throne as consort. Jane's father, the Duke of Suffolk, and Lord Thomas Seymour, were trying to gain control of the young King and minimize the power of the Protector.

Ultimately, they failed to arrange the marriage, and Jane was proposed as a bride for the son and heir of the Duke of Somerset. When that alliance also failed, she was married to Guilford Dudley, a younger son of the Duke of Northumberland.

It must be said that Jane Grey never aspired to be Queen, and that she was a poor pawn in the political games of her parents her whole life. Her only happiness was in her relationship with Katherine Parr, and the time she was in her household.

Otherwise, she appears to have been very bright and studious, and a gentle soul who was definitely born into the wrong family.

Queen Mary recognized this, and even though Jane had been tried for treason, found guilty and imprisoned in the tower, Mary intended to spare her life. She knew what kind of woman her cousin Frances was, just as she knew Jane to be sensitive and meek.

Wyatt's Rebellion, however, changed Queen Mary's mind. It was a popular revolt, of which the Duke of Suffolk took part, based on the nobility's opposition to the marriage of the Queen with the King of Spain. They called for Jane's restoration as Queen.

Philip of Spain and his councillors pressed Queen Mary to execute Jane and put an end to any future focus of unrest. Mary realized that as long as Jane lived, having once been declared Queen, that her reign would always be threatened by Protestant rebellion. And it was Mary's intention to return England to the Catholic faith.

Had it not been for Wyatt's Rebellion, Jane Grey would have kept her head.

I'm not quite sure when it was that Frances Brandon begged for the life of her husband, but he was executed a week after Jane and Guilford Dudley. It could have been that Jane was already dead at this point, and if not, I doubt Frances Brandon would have given much thought to Jane in any case. That was just the kind of woman she was.

Less than a month after the executions of her daughter and her husband, Frances Brandon married Adrian Stokes, who was Master of the Horse. This marriage shocked the court, and produced 3 children; Elizabeth (stillborn), Elizabeth Stokes (1555-1556) and a stillborn son. So she never did get her heir.

Frances was fully pardoned by Queen Mary and was allowed to remain at court with her daughters. But she was never known to have mentioned Jane again.

 

[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]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Kotroman]

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.

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.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

... 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.

 

[Kotroman]

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]

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.

 

[Ella Kay]

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?

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Please let's not start discussing how reliable and credible the official website is.

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...

As far as I know, Jane is always referred to as "Lady Jane Grey, Queen of England". There are numerous lists of the monarchy in which she is named as Queen.

The Loseley Manuscripts, constitute the largest single collection of documents bearing Jane’s autograph signature as Queen. These documents are housed in the Surrey History Centre in Woking, Surrey, and demonstrate that Jane obviously signed documents as Queen of England.

She is therefore included in the list of reigning monarchs. Not because of someone's belief in the Divine Right of Kings, but because official documents were issued in her name and signed by her as the monarch of the realm.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

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.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

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"

The title Prince of Wales may only be held by the Heir Apparent of the reigning Sovereign. This does not necessarily mean the Sovereign's eldest son. Generally that is the case, but in the case of George III, his father Frederick was Prince of Wales as Heir Apparent. King George II created his grandson (later George III) Prince of Wales after Frederick's death, because he was then the Heir Apparent as Frederick's eldest son. (The Heir Apparent can only be male. Females are Heirs Presumptive).

If there is any list or website naming James I and VI as a "United Kingdom Monarch", then they are mistaken. The error could be because his accession marked what is called "The Union of the Crowns", and the unification of England and Scotland under one monarch.

The term is misleading, because both countries of course, remained separate until the Act of Union in 1707. But it would not be surprising that some misinterpretation has occurred.

 

[Kotroman]

Then you agree with me that the official website is not so reliable.

As far as I know, Jane is always referred to as "Lady Jane Grey, Queen of England".

As far as I know and as far as I can prove, Lady Jane Grey is not always referred to as "Lady Jane Grey, Queen of England". More than 600 books refer to her as Lady Jane Grey without mentioning the disputed title of Queen of England at all. See http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Lady+Jane+Grey&as_oq=&as_eq=Queen+of+England&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn=
Out of 2,000 books mentioning Lady Jane Grey, only 200 refer to her as "Lady Jane Grey, Queen of England" (with most of those books saying that Northumerland proclaimed "Lady Jane Grey [to be] queen of England". Therefore, you are wrong.

There are numerous lists of the monarchy in which she is named as Queen.

There are also numerous lists of monarchs in which she is not listed as legitimate monarch (being listed as claimant or pretender at best, sometimes ignored altogether).

The Loseley Manuscripts, constitute the largest single collection of documents bearing Jane’s autograph signature as Queen. These documents are housed in the Surrey History Centre in Woking, Surrey, and demonstrate that Jane obviously signed documents as Queen of England.

She is therefore included in the list of reigning monarchs. Not because of someone's belief in the Divine Right of Kings, but because official documents were issued in her name and signed by her as the monarch of the realm.

Of course Jane believed herself to be legitimate monarch. Believeing to be the rightful successor, she signed documents as Queen of England during those 9 days, but that does not make her the rightful Queen of England. Since her accession was against the Third Succession Act and therefore unconstitutional, Jane's reign can only be recognized by those who believe that Edward VI had the right to name his successor without consulting parliament and changing the law - i.e. those who believe in the Divine Right of Kings, that a king has the right to overrule another king's decision and ignore an act of parliament.

 

[Iluvbertie]

(The Heir Apparent can only be male. Females are Heirs Presumptive).

I agree that an 'Heir Apparent' can only be male because 'heir' is the male version of the word but females can be heiress apparent.

Here is a scenario in which a female can be apparent - that is the female can't be replaced in the line of succession.


William marries, has a daughter, dies.

That daughter would become heiress apparent to Charles as being the only child of the eldest son she couldn't be replaced by a younger brother.

Another - imagine that back in the early 1800s George IV had died instead of his daughter. Then she would have been the heiress apparent as she couldn't have been replaced.

It hasn't happened but it could and therefore it isn't correct to say that a female can't be the apparent heir rather than the presumptive heir.

 

[Kotroman]

Absolutely correct!

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

The terms Heir Apparent and Heir Presumptive are the correct forms, regardless of gender. And while it is true that an Heir Apparent cannot be displaced from inheriting, under British law and the male-preference primogeniture that they practice, even in the scenario you proposed, the only daughter of Prince William would still most likely be called the Heir Presumptive.

For the purposes of the legal system in Britain, it is assumed that childbirth is always possible, irrespective of age or health status. The possibility of a fertile octogenarian, although nonexistent in reality, is never ruled out. In such circumstances a person may be, in a practical sense, the Heir Apparent but still, legally speaking, Heir Presumptive. Thus in the normal run of things even an only daughter will not be her father's (or mother's) Heir Apparent, since at any time a brother might be born who, although younger, would displace her. Hence she is only an Heir Presumptive.

That is why Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, was never recognized as the Heir Apparent of her father, even though she had no brothers. Legally it was assumed that at any time until his death, George VI could have fathered a legitimate son, and therefore displaced Elizabeth in the line of succession. Practically speaking, Queen Elizabeth II was the Heir Apparent, but under British law she was the Heir Presumptive because she was female.

When Queen Victoria became monarch as the Heir Presumptive of William IV, it was with the caveat "saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William IV, which may be born of his late Majesty's consort." This provision was made in case Queen Adelaide may have been pregnant at the time of William's death, even though she was 45 years old at the time.

In all of British history, there was only ever one female Heir Apparent, and that was Queen Anne. The settlement that established King William and Queen Mary as joint monarchs only gave the power of continuing the succession through the legitimate issue of Mary II. King William was to reign only for life. If he had children by a wife other than Queen Mary, then those children would be in his original place in the line of succession (which was as Queen Mary's 1st cousin).

The only children that could have displaced Anne of course, were never born. So although William continued to rule after Mary's death, he had no power to beget direct heirs to the throne. Anne became Heir Apparent for the rest of his reign, and succeeded him as Queen.

It is not absolutely impossible in the scenario you provided, that a daughter of Prince William (were he deceased) would be recognized as Heir Apparent, but there is no precedent for it in British history. And as long as Britain adheres to male-preference primogeniture, it is presumption to assume that a Princess would be recognized as anything other than Heir Presumptive (even if she is in a practical sense, the Heir Apparent).

 

[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]

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]

As far as I know and as far as I can prove, Lady Jane Grey is not always referred to as "Lady Jane Grey, Queen of England". More than 600 books refer to her as Lady Jane Grey without mentioning the disputed title of Queen of England at all. See http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Lady+Jane+Grey&as_oq=&as_eq=Queen+of+England&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn=
Out of 2,000 books mentioning Lady Jane Grey, only 200 refer to her as "Lady Jane Grey, Queen of England" (with most of those books saying that Northumerland proclaimed "Lady Jane Grey [to be] queen of England". Therefore, you are wrong.

Of course Jane believed herself to be legitimate monarch. Believeing to be the rightful successor, she signed documents as Queen of England during those 9 days, but that does not make her the rightful Queen of England. Since her accession was against the Third Succession Act and therefore unconstitutional, Jane's reign can only be recognized by those who believe that Edward VI had the right to name his successor without consulting parliament and changing the law - i.e. those who believe in the Divine Right of Kings, that a king has the right to overrule another king's decision and ignore an act of parliament.

Simply because a book title does not refer to Lady Jane Grey as Queen of England, doesn't mean that she should be stricken from the list of English monarchs. Historically speaking, she has been treated as "The Nine Day Queen", and since there are extant documents signed by her as Queen of England, it is prudent to include her in the list from that standpoint alone.

Her short reign was historically significant, and should not be discounted based solely on legality.

The history of the monarchy and the reigns of the monarchs themselves is not based solely on this issue. There were factions and wars and in-fighting among family members, outside threats, internal and external circumstances, that determined who was strong enough to gain, retain and defend the throne of England. Parliament could be overturned, disbanded and ignored at the will of whichever Sovereign occupied the throne.

We tend to forget how turbulent those times were, when compared to the orderly Hannover dynasty - when Parliament had firm control of the government.

If you apply strict legality as the criteria for the list of monarchs, then Stephen of Blois should be stricken, because he was the usurper of Matilda's rightful throne. Likewise, Henry IV should be removed, since he deposed Richard II, who was the legal heir.

Not to mention ALL of the Tudor Dynasty.. the Beaufort children of John of Gaunt were legitimated, but Henry IV declared them all ineligible to ever inherit the throne of England. Yet Henry VII became King when there were questions of legitimacy and legality on both sides of his family, and when the true heirs of Richard III were the sons of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, as she was the surviving daughter of the Duke of Clarence.

Saying that Lady Jane Grey was not Queen of England is like saying Elizabeth of Bohemia wasn't the Winter Queen, and she was a crowned Consort. Both are monikers, and are used as a reference in history.

Legally speaking, Jane Grey was not Queen of England and that is well known, since she was not crowned, and because her inheriting the throne at that time contravened Parliament; but as you say, she believed herself to be Queen, and for nine days the English people in and around London believed her to be Queen.

Since proclamations and documents were issued in her name and signed by her in the capacity of Queen, it is only fair to treat her as very brief monarch of England.

After all, everyone recognizes Henry VII, who should never have ascended the throne at all.. and if it weren't for him, there would never have been a Tudor dynasty to begin with.. and no Jane Grey.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

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 terms Heir Apparent and Heir Presumptive are the correct forms, regardless of gender. And while it is true that an Heir Apparent cannot be displaced from inheriting, under British law and the male-preference primogeniture that they practice, even in the scenario you proposed, the only daughter of Prince William would still most likely be called the Heir Presumptive.

For the purposes of the legal system in Britain, it is assumed that childbirth is always possible, irrespective of age or health status. The possibility of a fertile octogenarian, although nonexistent in reality, is never ruled out. In such circumstances a person may be, in a practical sense, the Heir Apparent but still, legally speaking, Heir Presumptive. Thus in the normal run of things even an only daughter will not be her father's (or mother's) Heir Apparent, since at any time a brother might be born who, although younger, would displace her. Hence she is only an Heir Presumptive.

Yes, but in the above scenario, childbirth would be irrelevant. If William had a daughter and then died, there would be no possibility of a younger brother to that daughter (at least after a wait of a few months to make sure his widow wasn't pregnant). Nobody could be born who could displace that girl as heir to Charles.

Back in Tudor times, before the Act of Settlement, the succession wasn't legally cut and dried the way it is these days. So when things were getting into possible inheritance by cousins and nieces and nephews and so on, I doubt very much that anyone would be secure in the Heir Apparent status anyway.

 

[Kotroman]

The terms Heir Apparent and Heir Presumptive are the correct forms, regardless of gender. And while it is true that an Heir Apparent cannot be displaced from inheriting, under British law and the male-preference primogeniture that they practice, even in the scenario you proposed, the only daughter of Prince William would still most likely be called the Heir Presumptive.

Please explain why would an heiress apparent be called heir presumptive if she could not be displaced by anyone?

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Please explain why would an heiress apparent be called heir presumptive if she could not be displaced by anyone?

As I explained in the post you quoted from, there is no precedent in the British history of the royal family for a female to be recognized as the Heir Apparent.

There is only one case in which a female has been recognized as such, and that was Queen Anne. Those were special circumstances, as her brother-in-law remained King after the death of her sister. She was named Heir Apparent because William III and Mary II had no children, and William was barred from begetting direct heirs to the throne. Anne was next in the line of succession after him, as he was guaranteed the throne for life.

Queen Victoria was the Heir Presumptive of William IV. She was never his Heir Apparent either, even though the fate of the British monarchy rested with her.

Queen Elizabeth II was never recognized as Heir Apparent, even though she could not be displaced in the line of succession. She was the Heir Presumptive of George VI until his death.

So the likelihood of a Princess being named Heir Apparent to the British throne, even in the event that no one can displace her in the line of succession, is slim. It is not impossible, if the case were that the Princess was the only child of a deceased Prince William, but I personally doubt that she would be named Heir Apparent even then.

Quite simply, it has never happened before and there is no precedent of a female Heir Apparent to the British Crown. Even if a female is for all practical purposes the Heir Apparent, as in the case of Queen Elizabeth II, British law would legally only recognize her as Heir Presumptive.

For right or wrong, that is how the law works in a male-preference primogeniture society, and that is the basis of British Peerage Law, and gender is a huge issue when it comes to the laws of peerage in Britain.

On the other hand, in countries that practice absolute primogeniture, such as Sweden, Crown Princess Victoria is the Heir Apparent of her father because she is next in line of succession regardless of gender. Her younger brother is Heir Presumptive of the Crown Princess, and will lose that status once she has children.

 

[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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As I explained in the post you quoted from, there is no precedent in the British history of the royal family for a female to be recognized as the Heir Apparent.

There is only one case in which a female has been recognized as such, and that was Queen Anne. Those were special circumstances, as her brother-in-law remained King after the death of her sister. She was named Heir Apparent because William III and Mary II had no children, and William was barred from begetting direct heirs to the throne. Anne was next in the line of succession after him, as he was guaranteed the throne for life.

Queen Victoria was the Heir Presumptive of William IV. She was never his Heir Apparent either, even though the fate of the British monarchy rested with her.

Queen Elizabeth II was never recognized as Heir Apparent, even though she could not be displaced in the line of succession. She was the Heir Presumptive of George VI until his death.

So the likelihood of a Princess being named Heir Apparent to the British throne, even in the event that no one can displace her in the line of succession, is slim. It is not impossible, if the case were that the Princess was the only child of a deceased Prince William, but I personally doubt that she would be named Heir Apparent even then.

Quite simply, it has never happened before and there is no precedent of a female Heir Apparent to the British Crown. Even if a female is for all practical purposes the Heir Apparent, as in the case of Queen Elizabeth II, British law would legally only recognize her as Heir Presumptive.

For right or wrong, that is how the law works in a male-preference primogeniture society, and that is the basis of British Peerage Law, and gender is a huge issue when it comes to the laws of peerage in Britain.

On the other hand, in countries that practice absolute primogeniture, such as Sweden, Crown Princess Victoria is the Heir Apparent of her father because she is next in line of succession regardless of gender. Her younger brother is Heir Presumptive of the Crown Princess, and will lose that status once she has children.

You realise that you have made my case for me don't you?

You acknowledge that Anne was name Heir Apparent (actually it was heiress apparent because she was female) because she couldn't be replaced in the line of succession, after Mary II died.

I then argue that should William had a daughter and then died, that as that daughter couldn't be replaced in the line of succession, she would be acknowledged as Heiress Apparent.

The others you mention, Victorian and Elizabeth could have both been replaced by another child and thus were never able to be named as Heiress Apparent.

Thank you for making my argument by pointing out the precedent that proves my case - Britain has had an Heiress Apparent before and so would have one again should the situation arise.

 

[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]

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.

 

[Kotroman]

Simply because a book title does not refer to Lady Jane Grey as Queen of England, doesn't mean that she should be stricken from the list of English monarchs. Historically speaking, she has been treated as "The Nine Day Queen", and since there are extant documents signed by her as Queen of England, it is prudent to include her in the list from that standpoint alone.

Her short reign was historically significant, and should not be discounted based solely on legality.

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.

If you apply strict legality as the criteria for the list of monarchs, then Stephen of Blois should be stricken, because he was the usurper of Matilda's rightful throne. Likewise, Henry IV should be removed, since he deposed Richard II, who was the legal heir.

Not to mention ALL of the Tudor Dynasty.. the Beaufort children of John of Gaunt were legitimated, but Henry IV declared them all ineligible to ever inherit the throne of England. Yet Henry VII became King when there were questions of legitimacy and legality on both sides of his family, and when the true heirs of Richard III were the sons of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, as she was the surviving daughter of the Duke of Clarence.

Saying that Lady Jane Grey was not Queen of England is like saying Elizabeth of Bohemia wasn't the Winter Queen, and she was a crowned Consort. Both are monikers, and are used as a reference in history.

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.
2. Henry IV was crowned an recognized by the parliament - therefore, he was a legitimate ruler.
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.
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.

Legally speaking, Jane Grey was not Queen of England and that is well known, since she was not crowned, and because her inheriting the throne at that time contravened Parliament; but as you say, she believed herself to be Queen, and for nine days the English people in and around London believed her to be Queen.

Nero, a lunatic who ruled over Rome, believed himself to be a great poet. Did that make him a great poet? I can believe myself to be a Hollywood star. Does that make me a Hollywood star? Joshua Abraham Norton believed himself to be Emperor of the United States and he had more followers than Jane. Did that make him an emperor of the United States?

You are saying that the people of London believed Jane to be Queen? I wonder how Mary managed to successfully fight all the people of London in order to enter the city and overthrow their rightful queen. Hmmm, I guess that the people of London believed Mary to be the rightful queen, as Mary and Elizabeth were actually welcomed by the people of London.

Since proclamations and documents were issued in her name and signed by her in the capacity of Queen, it is only fair to treat her as very brief monarch of England.

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.