OT: For Mitchy or a RAM anglophile
Joan in GB-W
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?
Joan
Dorothy J Heydt
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.
Mary
> In article <7lp8p7F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Joan in GB-W <jjk...@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.
Or am I off in my own little dreamland again?
Mary
Dorothy J Heydt
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.
Nine days, not four, it turns out.
Mary
> In article <hkLJm.127022$la3.35257@attbi_s22>,
> Mary <mrfea...@aol.c0m> wrote:
>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <7lp8p7F...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Joan in GB-W <jjk...@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.
>
> Nine days, not four, it turns out.
>
> http://www.ladyjanegrey.org/
>
Ah, that answers that.
Being heir to the kingdom was a dicey thing back then.
Mary
Joan in GB-W
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:Ksto1...@kithrup.com...
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
Mitchy
> 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.
Cece
So she was never crowned, Neither were Edward V and Edward VIII, and
they're both counted.
Joan in GB-W
"Cece" <ceceliaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e2a40386-e118-49e5...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------
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.
Joan
Annie C
"Mitchy" <mi...@NOSPAMorien.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7lq09rF...@mid.individual.net...
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!)
Annie
Francis A. Miniter
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:38:18 -0600, "Joan in GB-W" <jjk...@aol.com>
> 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.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Mitchy
> 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. :)
Mitchy
> 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.
Joan in GB-W
As did Mary, Queen of Scots.
Joan