So Edward IV proclaimed in his will that Jane Grey was his heir and then died shortly thereafter. Jane was proclaimed queen by the Privy Council for around 9 days at which point Mary showed up and locked her in the tower and later executed her. Mary claimed that her father’s will named her as Edward’s successor and therefore Jane was a pretender and traitor.
It brings up a few questions. Why was Henry VIII’s will valid but Edward’s not? Did Mary commit regicide? Was Jane ever “really” queen? If not why not? From my reading of history this question always seems to be answered by the idea that Mary was, at that time at least, very popular and arrived in London basically with an Army at her back which solves the legal question about the same way that the civil war resolved the question of whether states could succeed, namely by force of arms rather than by persuasive legal argument.
Regarding the differences in the wills; Parliament passed an act specifically giving Henry VIII the power to determine the succession in his will, so such act was ever passed for Edward VI. Neither Edward VI nor his Regency Council had the power to alter the succession without Parliament.
No, she was not. The odd Tudor habit of testamentary succession was as much a disaster as in other states such as Russia ( Peter I was as bumptious as Henry VIII, or Napoleon ), and the correct lineage going by traditional heir-general was followed here ( assuming any of the daughters was legitimate, which Henry didn’t know from one minute to the next ) and triumphantly reinstated by Elizabeth passing the Crown to James. His mother would have been heir had not Elizabeth murdered her.
And, typo, it was Edward VI’s will. The whole affair was just a Dudley plot.
It’s not that simple. When Henry VIII wanted to be King of Ireland, he got Parliament to declare him king; he didn’t feel it was something he could do himself. Likewise, when he wanted to prohibit appeals from English church courts to Rome, he got Parliament to do that. And of course when he wanted to regulate the succession to the crown by his Will, he got Parliament to pass an Act saying that he could do that.
In England the Crown was sovereign but, even then, that didn’t mean the King of the moment could do whatever he wanted however he liked. Legislation, for example, was enacted by the Crown-in-Parliament. There were fuzzy areas around exactly what the king would need the consent of Parliament for, what he could do through the courts, what he could do in Council, etc, etc. but there were large areas where the position was very clear. Edward VI didn’t necessarily have the right to regulate the succession by his Will merely because he wished to have it, and the fact that h is father - never slow himself to assert the authority of the crown - had relied on an Act of Parliament to enable him to do that was a strong indication that Edward couldn’t lawfully do it without such an Act.
For practical purposes, she was queen for all of nine days. She had the (highly questionable and badly re-scribbled) legal declaration from Edward. She had the procession and crowning in London. She had the support of the troops – at least in her immediate vicinity. You could make a Bricker-like case that she was Queen.
Except that the vast majority of people didn’t think she was. They didn’t expect her – she was out of the agreed-upon line of succession. When she was going down the Thames, people were asking who the hell she was. Mary had popular support – lots of it, and military support as well. When they marched into London the next wek, it was over without any fighting. Proof that, even in the case of a monarchy when you have the relevant documentation signed, you still need the consent of the people. And the guys with the spears.
I’d say “for practical purposes” in a very limited sense. She had the coronation and all, but you’re not really the monarch unless you can make orders that people have to do something to comply with, and have them obeyed. And I’m not sure that she was ever in a position to do this, beyond ordering what would be on the table for her royal supper.
One thing to remember is that we’re kinda sorta in the midst of the wars of religion here … and Jane Grey was a Protestant whereas both Mary Tudor and Mary Steward were Catholics … but as CalMeacham points out, Mary Tudor was popular and Jane Grey was relatively unknown … and Mary Steward was the Dolphine of France when Edward VI passed, so generally a very unpopular individual …
Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots since the age of 6 days, was aged 10 years and was betrothed to the Dauphin, but not married to him, in 1553 when Edward VI died. She married and became the Dauphine in 1558.
No. One cannot just proclaim oneself ruler. Your subjects, not to mention the most wealthy and influential people in your realm, have to accept you.
I think Jane had as good a claim as any other contender at the time if you looked at her lineage, but that wasn’t nearly enough. I think that the English people were so weary of bloodshed and civil unrest that they just wanted peace at any cost. For better or worse, Mary was the safest bet because she was status quo. Better the devil you know, and all that.
Sadly, Mary turned out to be paranoid and ineffective. However, all the drama that Elizabeth witnessed during her formative years clearly made a lasting impression on her because she possessed the rare combination of strength and temperance.
While I’m inclined to believe that she was Northumberland’s reluctant pawn, I don’t know that there’s any solid evidence about how she felt about the prospect of being Queen before or during her brief ‘reign.’ (I’m inclined to discount what she said later on, when she was hoping to avoid beheading.)
Well, before she was crowned Queen, they told her she had to marry in order to boost her claim. All historical biography I’ve read said she had to be forced into it.
She wasn’t exactly power hungry or really interested in being a Queen.
