I started reading "The Sisters Who Would be Queen," (Mary, Katherine, and Lady Jane Grey) yesterday. What I am questioning is . . . is Lady Jane Grey considered an actual queen of England? Do they teach that in the schools on the English side of the great pond? In a book on my book shelf, "Kings and Queens of England," by Alan Palmer, there is this line, "Technically Queen Jane reigned for nine days." Technically?
So, again, my question, is Lady Jane, or Queen Jane, considered an actual, authentic queen of England?
In article <7lp8p7F3edsm...@mid.individual.net>, Joan in GB-W <jjkr...@aol.com> wrote:
>I started reading "The Sisters Who Would be Queen," (Mary, Katherine, and >Lady Jane Grey) yesterday. What I am questioning is . . . is Lady Jane Grey >considered an actual queen of England? Do they teach that in the schools on >the English side of the great pond? In a book on my book shelf, "Kings and >Queens of England," by Alan Palmer, there is this line, "Technically Queen >Jane reigned for nine days." Technically?
>So, again, my question, is Lady Jane, or Queen Jane, considered an actual, >authentic queen of England?
According to what I've read, she was actually Queen for about four days.
-- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at hotmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress. Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <7lp8p7F3edsm...@mid.individual.net>, > Joan in GB-W <jjkr...@aol.com> wrote: >> I started reading "The Sisters Who Would be Queen," (Mary, Katherine, and >> Lady Jane Grey) yesterday. What I am questioning is . . . is Lady Jane Grey >> considered an actual queen of England? Do they teach that in the schools on >> the English side of the great pond? In a book on my book shelf, "Kings and >> Queens of England," by Alan Palmer, there is this line, "Technically Queen >> Jane reigned for nine days." Technically?
>> So, again, my question, is Lady Jane, or Queen Jane, considered an actual, >> authentic queen of England?
> According to what I've read, she was actually Queen for about > four days.
I don't know where Mitchy and Rik are, but I thought that Joan was asking about whether she was a reigning Queen rather than just the spouse of a King.
Mary <mrfeath...@aol.c0m> wrote: >Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> In article <7lp8p7F3edsm...@mid.individual.net>, >> Joan in GB-W <jjkr...@aol.com> wrote: >>> I started reading "The Sisters Who Would be Queen," (Mary, Katherine, and >>> Lady Jane Grey) yesterday. What I am questioning is . . . is Lady Jane Grey >>> considered an actual queen of England? Do they teach that in the schools on >>> the English side of the great pond? In a book on my book shelf, "Kings and >>> Queens of England," by Alan Palmer, there is this line, "Technically Queen >>> Jane reigned for nine days." Technically?
>>> So, again, my question, is Lady Jane, or Queen Jane, considered an actual, >>> authentic queen of England?
>> According to what I've read, she was actually Queen for about >> four days.
>I don't know where Mitchy and Rik are, but I thought that Joan was >asking about whether she was a reigning Queen rather than just the >spouse of a King.
She was not the spouse of a King. She was put forward as the next heir by a faction that supported her. Then another faction overruled them and she was beheaded.
-- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at hotmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress. Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <hkLJm.127022$la3.35257@attbi_s22>, > Mary <mrfeath...@aol.c0m> wrote: >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>> In article <7lp8p7F3edsm...@mid.individual.net>, >>> Joan in GB-W <jjkr...@aol.com> wrote: >>>> I started reading "The Sisters Who Would be Queen," (Mary, Katherine, and >>>> Lady Jane Grey) yesterday. What I am questioning is . . . is Lady Jane Grey >>>> considered an actual queen of England? Do they teach that in the schools on >>>> the English side of the great pond? In a book on my book shelf, "Kings and >>>> Queens of England," by Alan Palmer, there is this line, "Technically Queen >>>> Jane reigned for nine days." Technically?
>>>> So, again, my question, is Lady Jane, or Queen Jane, considered an actual, >>>> authentic queen of England? >>> According to what I've read, she was actually Queen for about >>> four days.
>> I don't know where Mitchy and Rik are, but I thought that Joan was >> asking about whether she was a reigning Queen rather than just the >> spouse of a King.
> She was not the spouse of a King. She was put forward as the > next heir by a faction that supported her. Then another faction > overruled them and she was beheaded.
> In article <hkLJm.127022$la3.35257@attbi_s22>, > Mary <mrfeath...@aol.c0m> wrote: >>Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>> In article <7lp8p7F3edsm...@mid.individual.net>, >>> Joan in GB-W <jjkr...@aol.com> wrote: >>>> I started reading "The Sisters Who Would be Queen," (Mary, Katherine, >>>> and >>>> Lady Jane Grey) yesterday. What I am questioning is . . . is Lady Jane >>>> Grey >>>> considered an actual queen of England? Do they teach that in the >>>> schools on >>>> the English side of the great pond? In a book on my book shelf, "Kings >>>> and >>>> Queens of England," by Alan Palmer, there is this line, "Technically >>>> Queen >>>> Jane reigned for nine days." Technically?
>>>> So, again, my question, is Lady Jane, or Queen Jane, considered an >>>> actual, >>>> authentic queen of England?
>>> According to what I've read, she was actually Queen for about >>> four days.
>>I don't know where Mitchy and Rik are, but I thought that Joan was >>asking about whether she was a reigning Queen rather than just the >>spouse of a King.
> She was not the spouse of a King. She was put forward as the > next heir by a faction that supported her. Then another faction > overruled them and she was beheaded.
Thanks, Dorothy, but I would like to hear from Mitchy, Rik, or maybe Mique on this subject. What do they teach in English schools? My books on the Kings and Queens of England says Jane was technically a queen. The word technically throws me. Either she was or she wasn't. Of course, I am only just into the Sisters Who Would be Queen book, and that might put a little more light on the subject for me. I know Queen Mary agonized over killing her (as I suppose her sister Elizabeth agonized over dispatching Mary, Queen of Scots) . . . as Mary said, it was a dicey thing to be heir to the kingdom back then.
> Thanks, Dorothy, but I would like to hear from Mitchy, Rik, or maybe > Mique on this subject. What do they teach in English schools? My books > on the Kings and Queens of England says Jane was technically a queen. > The word technically throws me. Either she was or she wasn't. Of > course, I am only just into the Sisters Who Would be Queen book, and > that might put a little more light on the subject for me. I know Queen > Mary agonized over killing her (as I suppose her sister Elizabeth > agonized over dispatching Mary, Queen of Scots) . . . as Mary said, it > was a dicey thing to be heir to the kingdom back then.
> Joan
Hi Joan,
I remember at school showing off to a teacher who'd just rattled off a list of tudor kings and queens by pointing out she'd forgotton Lady Jane Grey. She is ALWAYS referred to as Lady Jane Grey, sometimes with the tag "Nine Days Queen". She is never called Queen Jane and I can't honestly say I recall her name being in many official lists of England's Kings and Queens, except as a footnote.
She was never coronated and her claim to the throne was exceptionally weak. The whole thing was a Protestant ploy to prevent the staunchly Catholic Queen Mary from ascending the throne. Because the claim was weak, there was far stronger support for Mary to ascend as per Henry VIII's wishes - I think I'm correct in saying there was an Act of Parliament specifically naming Henry's 3 children as his heirs and only if they died without issue would the crown move to another line. After two weeks, Lady Jane's support had faded and she was deposed.
Technically she was a queen - she was proclaimed such, she had the powers but without a coronation and support, it couldn't hold and lacked the legal backing to be considered legitimate. Interestingly, while she is known as the Nine Days Queen by custom, there is some dispute as to whether she should be the 13 Days Queen. She was proclaimed Queen 4 days after Edward died, the length of her rule depends on whether you count from the moment of his death or from when she was proclaimed. Nine Days Queen is a lot catchier than "Nearly a Fortnight" I guess :)
Also interestingly, what really sealed her fate was the rebellion of Thomas Wyatt a couple of years later which I seem to recall she wasn't directly involved with but her father was. His support of that meant the death sentence was finally carried out, after Queen Mary's advisors pressured her to end a source of unrest, much as Elizabeth was finally persuaded to execute Mary, Queen of Scots decades later.
*looks at time* Wow, all this before work. I need tea. Hope this helps, Joan!
> > Thanks, Dorothy, but I would like to hear from Mitchy, Rik, or maybe > > Mique on this subject. What do they teach in English schools? My books > > on the Kings and Queens of England says Jane was technically a queen. > > The word technically throws me. Either she was or she wasn't. Of > > course, I am only just into the Sisters Who Would be Queen book, and > > that might put a little more light on the subject for me. I know Queen > > Mary agonized over killing her (as I suppose her sister Elizabeth > > agonized over dispatching Mary, Queen of Scots) . . . as Mary said, it > > was a dicey thing to be heir to the kingdom back then.
> > Joan
> Hi Joan,
> I remember at school showing off to a teacher who'd > just rattled off a list of tudor kings and queens by > pointing out she'd forgotton Lady Jane Grey. She is > ALWAYS referred to as Lady Jane Grey, sometimes with > the tag "Nine Days Queen". She is never called Queen > Jane and I can't honestly say I recall her name being > in many official lists of England's Kings and Queens, > except as a footnote.
> She was never coronated and her claim to the throne was > exceptionally weak. The whole thing was a Protestant > ploy to prevent the staunchly Catholic Queen Mary from > ascending the throne. Because the claim was weak, > there was far stronger support for Mary to ascend as > per Henry VIII's wishes - I think I'm correct in saying > there was an Act of Parliament specifically naming > Henry's 3 children as his heirs and only if they died > without issue would the crown move to another line. > After two weeks, Lady Jane's support had faded and she > was deposed.
> Technically she was a queen - she was proclaimed such, > she had the powers but without a coronation and > support, it couldn't hold and lacked the legal backing > to be considered legitimate. Interestingly, while she > is known as the Nine Days Queen by custom, there is > some dispute as to whether she should be the 13 Days > Queen. She was proclaimed Queen 4 days after Edward > died, the length of her rule depends on whether you > count from the moment of his death or from when she was > proclaimed. Nine Days Queen is a lot catchier than > "Nearly a Fortnight" I guess :)
> Also interestingly, what really sealed her fate was the > rebellion of Thomas Wyatt a couple of years later which > I seem to recall she wasn't directly involved with but > her father was. His support of that meant the death > sentence was finally carried out, after Queen Mary's > advisors pressured her to end a source of unrest, much > as Elizabeth was finally persuaded to execute Mary, > Queen of Scots decades later.
> *looks at time* Wow, all this before work. I need tea. > Hope this helps, Joan!
> Mitchy, staggering off to work.
So she was never crowned, Neither were Edward V and Edward VIII, and they're both counted.
> > Thanks, Dorothy, but I would like to hear from Mitchy, Rik, or maybe > > Mique on this subject. What do they teach in English schools? My books > > on the Kings and Queens of England says Jane was technically a queen. > > The word technically throws me. Either she was or she wasn't. Of > > course, I am only just into the Sisters Who Would be Queen book, and > > that might put a little more light on the subject for me. I know Queen > > Mary agonized over killing her (as I suppose her sister Elizabeth > > agonized over dispatching Mary, Queen of Scots) . . . as Mary said, it > > was a dicey thing to be heir to the kingdom back then.
> > Joan
> Hi Joan,
> I remember at school showing off to a teacher who'd > just rattled off a list of tudor kings and queens by > pointing out she'd forgotton Lady Jane Grey. She is > ALWAYS referred to as Lady Jane Grey, sometimes with > the tag "Nine Days Queen". She is never called Queen > Jane and I can't honestly say I recall her name being > in many official lists of England's Kings and Queens, > except as a footnote.
> She was never coronated and her claim to the throne was > exceptionally weak. The whole thing was a Protestant > ploy to prevent the staunchly Catholic Queen Mary from > ascending the throne. Because the claim was weak, > there was far stronger support for Mary to ascend as > per Henry VIII's wishes - I think I'm correct in saying > there was an Act of Parliament specifically naming > Henry's 3 children as his heirs and only if they died > without issue would the crown move to another line. > After two weeks, Lady Jane's support had faded and she > was deposed.
> Technically she was a queen - she was proclaimed such, > she had the powers but without a coronation and > support, it couldn't hold and lacked the legal backing > to be considered legitimate. Interestingly, while she > is known as the Nine Days Queen by custom, there is > some dispute as to whether she should be the 13 Days > Queen. She was proclaimed Queen 4 days after Edward > died, the length of her rule depends on whether you > count from the moment of his death or from when she was > proclaimed. Nine Days Queen is a lot catchier than > "Nearly a Fortnight" I guess :)
> Also interestingly, what really sealed her fate was the > rebellion of Thomas Wyatt a couple of years later which > I seem to recall she wasn't directly involved with but > her father was. His support of that meant the death > sentence was finally carried out, after Queen Mary's > advisors pressured her to end a source of unrest, much > as Elizabeth was finally persuaded to execute Mary, > Queen of Scots decades later.
> *looks at time* Wow, all this before work. I need tea. > Hope this helps, Joan!
> Mitchy, staggering off to work.
So she was never crowned, Neither were Edward V and Edward VIII, and they're both counted.
----------------------------
I found this on an oline site re the House of Tudor: Edward VI named Lady Jane Grey as his heir presumptive. Four days after his death, Jane was proclaimed queen. Nine days after the proclamation, Edward VI's Catholic half-sister Mary had managed to find sufficient support to ride into London in a triumphal procession on 19 July. Jane was executed in 1554, aged 16. Few historians consider her to have been a legitimate monarch.
>> Thanks, Dorothy, but I would like to hear from Mitchy, Rik, or maybe >> Mique on this subject. What do they teach in English schools? My books >> on the Kings and Queens of England says Jane was technically a queen. >> The word technically throws me. Either she was or she wasn't. Of >> course, I am only just into the Sisters Who Would be Queen book, and that >> might put a little more light on the subject for me. I know Queen Mary >> agonized over killing her (as I suppose her sister Elizabeth agonized >> over dispatching Mary, Queen of Scots) . . . as Mary said, it was a dicey >> thing to be heir to the kingdom back then.
>> Joan
> Hi Joan,
> I remember at school showing off to a teacher who'd just rattled off a > list of tudor kings and queens by pointing out she'd forgotton Lady Jane > Grey. She is ALWAYS referred to as Lady Jane Grey, sometimes with the tag > "Nine Days Queen". She is never called Queen Jane and I can't honestly say > I recall her name being in many official lists of England's Kings and > Queens, except as a footnote.
> She was never coronated and her claim to the throne was exceptionally > weak. The whole thing was a Protestant ploy to prevent the staunchly > Catholic Queen Mary from ascending the throne. Because the claim was > weak, there was far stronger support for Mary to ascend as per Henry > VIII's wishes - I think I'm correct in saying there was an Act of > Parliament specifically naming Henry's 3 children as his heirs and only if > they died without issue would the crown move to another line. After two > weeks, Lady Jane's support had faded and she was deposed.
> Technically she was a queen - she was proclaimed such, she had the powers > but without a coronation and support, it couldn't hold and lacked the > legal backing to be considered legitimate. Interestingly, while she is > known as the Nine Days Queen by custom, there is some dispute as to > whether she should be the 13 Days Queen. She was proclaimed Queen 4 days > after Edward died, the length of her rule depends on whether you count > from the moment of his death or from when she was proclaimed. Nine Days > Queen is a lot catchier than "Nearly a Fortnight" I guess :)
> Also interestingly, what really sealed her fate was the rebellion of > Thomas Wyatt a couple of years later which I seem to recall she wasn't > directly involved with but her father was. His support of that meant the > death sentence was finally carried out, after Queen Mary's advisors > pressured her to end a source of unrest, much as Elizabeth was finally > persuaded to execute Mary, Queen of Scots decades later.
> *looks at time* Wow, all this before work. I need tea. Hope this helps, > Joan!
> Mitchy, staggering off to work.
Not being any kind of morning person myself, Mitchy, I'm amazed you can write this lucidly before you have your caffeine! (I don't think I ever quite understood before how that all came about for poor Lady Jane.. thanks for the info!)
Mike Burke wrote: > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:38:18 -0600, "Joan in GB-W" <jjkr...@aol.com> > wrote:
>> "Dorothy J Heydt" <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote in message >> news:Ksto1q.9I8@kithrup.com... >>> In article <hkLJm.127022$la3.35257@attbi_s22>, >>> Mary <mrfeath...@aol.c0m> wrote: >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>>> In article <7lp8p7F3edsm...@mid.individual.net>, >>>>> Joan in GB-W <jjkr...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> I started reading "The Sisters Who Would be Queen," (Mary, Katherine, >>>>>> and >>>>>> Lady Jane Grey) yesterday. What I am questioning is . . . is Lady Jane >>>>>> Grey >>>>>> considered an actual queen of England? Do they teach that in the >>>>>> schools on >>>>>> the English side of the great pond? In a book on my book shelf, "Kings >>>>>> and >>>>>> Queens of England," by Alan Palmer, there is this line, "Technically >>>>>> Queen >>>>>> Jane reigned for nine days." Technically?
>>>>>> So, again, my question, is Lady Jane, or Queen Jane, considered an >>>>>> actual, >>>>>> authentic queen of England? >>>>> According to what I've read, she was actually Queen for about >>>>> four days.
>>>> I don't know where Mitchy and Rik are, but I thought that Joan was >>>> asking about whether she was a reigning Queen rather than just the >>>> spouse of a King. >>> She was not the spouse of a King. She was put forward as the >>> next heir by a faction that supported her. Then another faction >>> overruled them and she was beheaded.
>>> -- >>> Dorothy J. Heydt >> Thanks, Dorothy, but I would like to hear from Mitchy, Rik, or maybe Mique >> on this subject. What do they teach in English schools? My books on the >> Kings and Queens of England says Jane was technically a queen. The word >> technically throws me. Either she was or she wasn't. Of course, I am only >> just into the Sisters Who Would be Queen book, and that might put a little >> more light on the subject for me. I know Queen Mary agonized over killing >> her (as I suppose her sister Elizabeth agonized over dispatching Mary, Queen >> of Scots) . . . as Mary said, it was a dicey thing to be heir to the kingdom >> back then.
> I've always understood that she was a lawful English monarch, albeit a > short-lived one and, by at least some accounts, the unwilling and > innocent victim of her family's ambitions.
> They were brutal times.
> Mique
The 16th century seems to have been particularly hard on queens. The 15th century was equally hard on kings.
Also worth noting among the ranks of disputed English monarchs is Matilda, aka Empress Maud.
-- Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente libros, laminas, llaves siguen mi suerte.
> Also worth noting among the ranks of disputed English monarchs is > Matilda, aka Empress Maud.
She would have been queen if she hadn't annoyed the City of London so badly, they turned on her and drove her out before she could be coronated. Legally and politically she never consolidated her brief time as Queen, hence she is usually never listed in the rolls of Kings and Queens. Actually, I think she had a raw deal, she was the legitimate heir and then Stephen got in on the act. Still, she started the Plantagenet line, in the form of her son Henry II, one of the strongest kings of the period so she got her revenge. :)
> So she was never crowned, Neither were Edward V and Edward VIII, and > they're both counted.
They were legitimate heirs and recognised as such at the time. Although Edward named Lady Jane as his successor in his will, he was too young for it to be legal, plus there is no doubt that he was sick, dying and influenced by Jane's father. It's the legality that matters, sometimes, not who actually proclaims themselves king or queen.
>> Also worth noting among the ranks of disputed English monarchs is >> Matilda, aka Empress Maud.
> She would have been queen if she hadn't annoyed the City of London so > badly, they turned on her and drove her out before she could be coronated. > Legally and politically she never consolidated her brief time as Queen, > hence she is usually never listed in the rolls of Kings and Queens. > Actually, I think she had a raw deal, she was the legitimate heir and then > Stephen got in on the act. Still, she started the Plantagenet line, in the > form of her son Henry II, one of the strongest kings of the period so she > got her revenge. :)
|
