My scant knowledge of Jane Grey’s realm comes from the movie with Helena Bonham Carter, in which Helena definitely wore a crown on her head. But today some commoner at work mentioned something he read on the internet today and said that she wasn’t officially a queen. My subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica has expired, but the introduction paragraph displayed for her name said she was a titular queen of England. I checked the chronological list of English rulers in my New York Public Library Desk Reference and she’s not in there.
So, my dear British friends - is she really a Queen of England listed in the Official Records of Past Rulers at Windsor Palace, or is she just a fraud?
well, I just checked and the official site of the British monarchy lists her, so I guess I’d give her a pass ;).
The argument against is that her claim was illegitimate and she ( or rather her faction ) never really had firm control of the kingdom. But she did have a coronation, so I don’t see any problem with acknowledging her very brief reign.
I think the practice is not to give a numeral unless and until there is another monarch with the same name. For example, books prior to 1952 just referred to Good Queen Bess as “Queen Elizabeth.” Similarly, Stephen, John, Anne and Victoria don’t have “I” behind their names.
Wiki sez she never actually had a Coronation, just a Proclamation: Lady Jane Grey, formally Jane of England (1537 – February 12, 1554), a grand-niece of Henry VIII of England, reigned as uncrowned queen regnant of the Kingdom of England for nine days in July 1553.
However, Edward V is also generally on most lists depite the fact no coronation was held and he never reigned even one day.
Hmmm…this appears to be correct. While there was apparently some ceremony where she was invested ( and in some places it is referred to as her coronation ) it doesn’t seem to have been the normal whole magilla.
I wouldn’t include Mary II on that list. She was joint monarch with her husband William III. When she died in 1694, her husband continued to rule alone. Her sister Anne didn’t come to the throne until after the death of William III in 1702.
If Ken is excluding Lady Jane Gray from the line of succession, shouldn’t he be throwing in Edward VI here? He was succeeded by his half sister Mary I.
Nor was Edward VIII crowned - he abdicated before his coronation, having reigned for lesss than a year.
Similarly, Elizabeth II reigned for nearly a year before her coronation. The coronation is not a legal requirement for the new monarch to assume the royal powers.
Exactly. The British monarchy operates on the principle of le roi est mort, vive le roi: the throne is never unoccupied, even for a millisecond; as soon as there is a demise of the Crown, the next person in line immediately succeeds, whether or not he/she sticks around long enough for a coronation.
I’ll have to rent that movie again - I seem to remember a scene where Jane Grey (Helena Bonham Carter) didn’t want to touch the official crown but then I’m sure there were other scenes where she was wearing it or some other crown. I would be shocked to find out that the movie was inaccurate!
How would you like to be the guy that could tell his friends afterwards: “Lady Jane couldn’t find the chopping block with her blindfold on so I helped her out”!?!
Precisely. The present Queen is alleged to be the first English/British/U.K. monarch to have ascended the throne while up in a tree. (The night her father died she was in Kenya, and was spending the night in a rather famous resort there where all the rooms are up in the branches of several intertwined trees.)
For the record, the next-to-last king of Portugal before abolition of the monarchy reigned for only 20 minutes, and spent his entire reign bleeding to death. He and his father, the incumbent king, were assassinated together, the king-until-that-point dying immediately and the son, becoming king automatically on the death of his father, fatally wounded but not yet dead. His own infant son, fortunately not along on the fatal trip, succeeded him.
Lady Jane Grey was not queen by any rules of succession: she was a subsidiary branch of the Tudors and by any accounting of the basic rules of promogeniture behind both Mary and Elizabeth.
Mary was the legal heir: it was laid out in Henry VIII’s will, which was the law of the land. The law also defined any attempt to discuss rewriting Henry’s will as treason.
Jane was a pawn put up by the Protestants to hold on to power, and I doubt even they expected it to succeed. It amounted to a coup, and the English people, though Protestant, supported Mary as the legal heir.
Except that Edward VI wrote his “Device of Succession” (will) to designate Jane Grey as being his successor. If Henry VIII could do it, why couldn’t Edward? Was it English law that Parliament had to approve a King’s will?
Henry VIII didn’t have the authority (he wasn’t an absolute monarch) to alter the succession on his own. An act of parliament was needed to give him the power to alter the order of succession. No such act was passed for Edward VI. And Edward was a minor (and thus unable to even legally write a will) and he didn’t actually rule (a council of regents did, per Henry VIII’s will). Also both Mary I and Elizabeth I were bastards when they ascended to the throne. Each had laws passed retroactively legitimating them.
Her father-in-law wanted her to name her husband, Guilford Dudley, and king-consort but she refused.