Talk:Lady Jane Grey

Jane of England on British Royal Family website
I keep amending the article to reflect the fact that the British Royal Family cite Jane Grey as Queen but it keeps getting changed back. Jane Grey is NOT a disputed Queen if the Royal Family specifically acknowledge her as Queen. Please see article below:

https://www.royal.uk/lady-jane-grey


 * Leaving the Queen/No Queen question aside, I wonder why you think the royal family's website operator's opinion should be dispositive. Surely it's historians and not royals who can present informed opinions on the subject. - Nunh-huh 22:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The website you've linked to says 'Lady Jane Grey' not 'Jane of England'. The article should do as the citations do, not make up new names. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I strongly dispute this. The website operator would need to ensure a level of accuracy before publishing, surely? Also, it's still a credible and official source. The website also states that she reigned from 10th to the 19th of July. If that is correct, then "Jane of England" would not necessarily be a made up name - it would be her regnal name. Similarly Queen Anne is listed as "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" or simply as "Anne". Rhys Hoffman (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.29.40 (talk)

I will offer an even better authority for answering the question of whether or not Jane should be regarded as a former Queen of England: The British Government. The National Archives at Kew stores and preserves the State Papers for each of the many monarchs that have reigned in England and the UK and for whom records survive, and it catalogues those State Papers according to the regnal name of the given monarch. The National Archives does have a separate cataloguing category for "Queen Jane" (though it is actually only a handful of items, since few documents from the brief reign survived). Further, the National Archives are an official sub-department of the UK Government under the main Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport, which has its own Cabinet-rank Secretary/Minister. I would therefore suggest that if a Cabinet-level department of the official government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland acknowledges Jane as a former Queen of England, then the issue is settled. Unless one thinks that the British Government is wrong about its own former heads of state .... DesertSkies120 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Although Queen Jane's reign was short, she was legally Queen of England, France (though not in practice) and Ireland, Jane was proclaimed Queen and was made so by Edward VI letters patent and was (briefly) recognised by the privy council. I say her title should be "Jane, Queen of England" WiltedXXVI (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, is her proclamation not enough (note that the following is the actual spelling in the proclamation, I can spell): "Jane, by the Grace of God Quene of England, Fraunce and Ireland, defendor of the faith" WiltedXXVI (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article titles follow WP:COMMONNAME. Amazingly enough, this has been discussed and rejected before - see here for the last time. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia will always bow to "facts determined by ballot and popular opinion" rather than taking the bold step of stating actual fact. The continuing insistence even far beyond Wikipedia on referring to Jane Grey Dudley as "Lady Jane" is sadly prompted by the former, not the latter.DesertSkies120 (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Manner of Execution
The article says that Lady Jane was sentenced to be burned but then says that she was beheaded. An explanation of the change would be nice.Bill (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it says she was sentenced to be burned or beheaded. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it was February. Firewood may have been scarce. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe Lady Jane was sentenced to death, the manner of which (beheading of burning) was at the Queen's pleasure. Mary chose to have mercy on her cousin and had her mercifully beheaded, rather than being painfully burned alive. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense also because she was basically accused of treason - rivalry to the Queen, rather than heresy. Rakovsky (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * First, it is important to understand that justice was administered in England by two separate judicial systems: secular and ecclesiastical. The secular or civil courts adjudicated cases according to English common and statute civil law. Treason was a civil offense and was adjudicated in civil courts. Ecclesiastical courts adjudicated cases according to English canon or church law. Heresy was a religious offense and was adjudicated in English canon law courts.
 * Jane Grey Dudley was tried in the Court of King's Bench, a secular civil court operating under English common and statute civil law. She never faced any charges whatsoever of violating canon law and thus never stood before an ecclesiastical or canon court. Only secular civil law determined her punishment.
 * Both civil and canon law mandated certain specific punishments for corresponding specific crimes, and those punishments were often gender specific. The statutory civil punishment for treason was likewise gender specific. For a man, the statutory punishment was hanging, drawing, and quartering. For women, it was burning. The reason for burning women rather than hanging, drawing, and quartering was ... bizarrely enough ... the pervasive deference to notions of feminine modesty. "For, as the natural modesty of the sex forbids the exposing and publicly mangling their bodies, their sentence is to be drawn [transported in a cart] to the gallows, and there to be burned alive." In all instances of crime and punishment, including treason, the Crown is the "Fount of Justice" but also has the prerogative right to exercise mercy and to commute the punishment for any crime to a lesser one or to pardon the convicted outright. In convictions for treason, the standard commutation is to beheading, for both men and women. The Court of King's Bench handed down to Jane Grey Dudley a sentence of burning because that was what common and civil law mandated for treason. Mary commuted it to beheading as more merciful. The issue of religion was entirely moot since Jane never faced a religious charge. DesertSkies120 (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think, in convictions for treason, the standard commutation was to beheading. But an explanatory footnote in the article might be useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please carefully read line 8 of my last paragraph, Martinevans123. "In convictions for treason, the standard commutation is to beheading, for both men and women." So yes, it "was." I decline ever to edit this article since doing so just leads to what I refer to as "reversal wars." So feel free to add that explanatory note. Just please be very careful that the note is factually accurate. DesertSkies120 (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is treason still on the statute book for England and Wales? It's unfortunate that you "decline to ever edit this article", as you obviously have some expertise in this area. Either way, I guess, any addition would need some WP:RS source(s)? An alternative approach would be to agree the wording of a footnote here first and then add it, if all editors are in agreement? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Laws against treason do remain "on the books" in many or even most countries today, including in the UK and the US. In the UK, the Treason Acts of 1351, 1702, and 1842 remain in effect, though they have all been repeatedly and extensively amended. They address primarily high treason, or acts committed against the Crown. (Petty treason is an act against a subject of the Crown.) The Felony Treason Act of 1848 also remains in effect. The punishment for treason has changed to life imprisonment rather than death by execution.
 * Yes, I firmly decline ever to edit Wikipedia articles related to Tudor history, especially those related to Jane Grey Dudley, her family, and the succession crisis of 1553. I am confident that I do indeed possess "some expertise" in that area, but Wikipedia has some problematic rules related to recognizing what constitutes "some expertise," who can or cannot serve as an expert, and how they can or cannot do so. Under Wikipedia's rules, for example, I cannot create edits that cite my own work, despite the fact that there simply is no other academically trained expert on Jane Grey Dudley living today and thus no published work authored by any academically trained expert other than Eric Ives and myself. And with all due respect to active Wikipedia editors, what qualifications do they have that enable them to determine what is or is not a valid edit of articles on Jane Grey Dudley and closely related topics? How do I find out what their qualifications are? After all, having watched one or two TV shows on the subject and having read Alison Plowden's plagiarized biography of Jane Grey Dudley or Mary Luke's or Alison Weir's novels about Jane Grey Dudley does not qualify one to edit articles about her, in my opinion.
 * But Wikipedia is not alone in that regard. The supposedly authoritative and highly respected Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 's article of Jane Grey Dudley was written by none other than Alison Plowden, a former BBC scriptwriter and plagiarist with zero training of any kind whatsoever in history, and that article states quite definitively ... and quite wrongly ... that Jane Grey Dudley was born on 12 October 1537 at Bradgate in Leicestershire. So rather than argue with Wikipedia editors who rely on incorrect and outdated secondary source material, I simply decline to do any editing myself. I will continue to point out in this Talk page what I believe to be the most egregious errors in the article and then leave it to the editors to vote or whatever on what they believe constitutes a "fact" and is therefore worthy of inclusion in the articles.DesertSkies120 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ives 2009
In my opinion, the "Ives 2009" source should be consolidated into one single reference. It unnecessarily takes up a lot of the reference list. Nophunintended0 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's better to keep the page numbers as it improves verifiability. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting to remove the page numbers from the citations, I'm suggesting collecting all the different instances in which the "Ives 2009" source is used into one single reference, so it's easier to refer to. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have that all in one place? Why should each individual page be listed separately? Nophunintended0 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's more difficult to refer to the book for verifiability if the page numbers are all mashed up together. It's better to give a specific page for each claim in the article so when we check verifiability we only have to go to that page instead of having to read the entire book. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * May I just suggest that anyone wanting to edit the formatting of the footnotes please first do some background reading in reliable guides on the purpose and formatting of those notes? The format you suggest is entirely contradictory to both the form and the function of end- and footnotes. Adopting the suggestion would significantly damage both the functionality and the credibility of Wikipedia itself. DesertSkies120 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Edward VI's "Will"
May I just point out an obvious error of fact in the second paragraph of this article?

The error: "In June 1553, the dying Edward VI wrote his will ... The will removed his half-sisters ...."

King Edward VI of England and Ireland did not write or leave a "will." He was only 16 years old at the time of his death and thus a legal minor. Only legal adults can write or leave last wills and testaments. Indeed, the fact that he was still a legal minor was a significant obstacle to his attempt to alter the succession. The document that he wrote himself is known as The Devize for the Succession. It is not a "will," and it had no binding legal authority whatsoever. In a failed attempt to get around the issue of his age and his inability to leave a will, he resorted to transforming the Devize into letters patent in the hope that they might be legally binding. But because even that was legally "sketchy," he compelled a large number of civil and religious authorities to countersign the letters patent in the hope of bolstering the legal validity of the letters patent. Academics and scholars continue to debate their binding legal authority even today.

If this article is to be correct and factual, it should state, "On 21 June 1553, the dying Edward VI published letters patent countersigned by a large number of civil and religious authorities nominating ...."DesertSkies120 (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Navy
This article always frustrates me with its inclusion of so much speculation and narrative not supported by the sources. There is a statement in this article indicating that Mary "eventually took control over the Royal navy." The chronological context is very muddled in the article (it is July 20 in the first sentence of the paragraph, then some unspecified date prior to that in the second sentence, then July 19 in the fourth sentence), but there is no footnote to indicate precisely when Mary "took control over the Royal navy." "Took control" is extreme wording, and "eventually" is extremely imprecise, especially in a context of building support toward claiming the throne from Jane. I wonder whether the person who wrote that section may have misunderstood or misstated the narrative. Might they be referring to the handful of ships that changed allegiance to Mary sometime between 14 and 19 July? That hardly constitutes taking control over an entire national navy. She did not assume (not "take") effective control over the entire English navy until some time after reaching London. DesertSkies120 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Jane's Father's Title Duke of Suffolk
Pardon me while I go on another lengthy tirade, but once again some anonymous "editor" has seen fit to edit this article under the false assumption that they, the 'editor,' knows what they are doing. I get so very tired of amateurs with limited or no knowledge making damaging edits to this article!

80.189.76.144 edited the text to indicate that Jane's father Henry Grey was 2nd Duke of Suffolk, not first. That anonymous editor is perhaps unaware of how holders of titles of nobility are numbered. The only explanation for that erroneous edit is that the anonymous editor perhaps assumed that Henry Grey somehow inherited the title from his father-in-law.

Henry Grey did not inherit the title Duke of Suffolk. He was elevated to that dignity by the Crown in November 1551. It was a new creation and had no direct relation to Charles Brandon, a previous holder of the title Duke of Suffolk and father of Henry Grey's wife Frances. As such, Henry Grey was 1st Duke of Suffolk in a new and 3rd creation. If 80.189.76.144's logic were valid, Grey would have been 4th Duke of Suffolk, since Charles Brandon's son Henry became 2nd Duke (in the second creation) on the death of his father in 1545, and Henry's brother Charles became 3rd Duke (again in the second creation) on Henry's death in July 1551 before himself dying one hour later. And no, before anyone raises the objection, Jane's father Henry Grey did not become Duke of Suffolk "in right of his wife." The title was bestowed in a new creation, though the Suffolk designation was based in part on the fact that his wife's father had held that designation.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR WIKIPEDIA TO LOCK THIS ARTICLE TO PROTECT IT AGAINST EDITING BY PERSONS WHO SHOULD NOT BE EDITING IT?

Wikipedia's "open source editing" policy, or whatever they call it, remains a massive impediment to Wikipedia's credibility and to its ability to be accepted as a consistently reliable source of factual information. I am utterly terrified of what will happen to this article when the My Lady Jane fans start dropping in to wreak editorial havoc by inserting tidbits they have gleaned from that unfortunate travesty. And if you want to know what gives me the right to speak with authority on the subject of Jane Grey Dudley, just have a look at my UserPage.DesertSkies120 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Portraits and paintings included in this article
I just "undid" a revision by Alanscottwalker in which he had added some text to the caption of the Delaroche image. I removed the revision because a) it is unnecessary and b) the term "chopping block" is incorrect.

Regarding the two portraits said to depict Frances Brandon Grey and Henry Grey, I have to ask "Why?" Neither portrait depicts the individuals named in the captions. Even the data for the portrait of the woman says quite clearly that it is "A Woman," with zero indication that it depicts Frances Grey. Did someone just pick any old random portrait and toss it into this article as a portrait of Frances Grey? Why? No portrait of France Brandon Grey has ever been confirmed. The portrait of the male dates to a much later period, long after Henry Grey was dead. The source appears to be Richard Davey's NOVEL (FICTION!) from 1909. And while it has repeatedly (and erroneously) been published as a portrait of Henry Grey, it is in fact a portrait of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.

The portrait said to depict Guildford Dudley is from the Palace of Westminster and was painted in the 19th century. It is 100% imaginary ... fictitious. It is therefore useless for this article. DesertSkies120 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If chopping block is "incorrect" that's no reason for the revert, is beheading block more to your liking. The reason for the edit is tying the scene depicted by the artist with the text of the article, so I don't agree with your revert.
 * As for the other images, why did you not just remove them. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The correct term(s) ... the term(s) that academic historians like myself use ... is simply "the block" or "the executioner's block." But I understand that many Wikipedia users are not concerned with accuracy of details and instead prefer inaccurate colloquial terminology.

I do not myself see any need to "tie the scene depicted by the artist to the text of the article" since I think the association is very obvious. But perhaps you are correct ... perhaps some people have significant difficulty making the association unless it is explicitly pointed out to them.

And I never remove entire chunks of content posted by others because that too often leads to editing wars and petty power struggles. I prefer simply to point out the facts as they are currently known to academic historians and to leave the large-chunk editing to persons braver than myself. Wikipedia gives the same editing authority to average people who have read a Philippa Gregory or Alison Weir novel that it gives to recognized academic experts, so what can I do? DesertSkies120 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As for your problems with Wikipedia, you seem to be wasting your time and howling at the wind, (which by the way, DesertSky120, another thing about Wikipedia is you are actually anonymous no matter what you say, so count your overweening need to seek to qualify and requalify yourself as another useless gesture). You seem to be confused between the meanings of colloquial and incorrect, or just elide them into meaninglessness for another waste of rhetoric. And no, to understand the painting, you already have to be well versed in what historians say happened, but perhaps you don't care about audience in writing, which is just poor writing technique. At any rate, go on, ironically you seem to be enjoying yourself, howling at the wind. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be offensive! Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The tone of Alanscottwalker's response is precisely why I do not engage directly in editing on Wikipedia. The slightest hints of criticism seems to cause certain types of people to become rude and offensive, as Johnbod kindly pointed out. I am quite happy to stand idly by and watch quietly as individuals introduce errors of fact into this article, if that is what it takes to keep from ruffling some peoples' feathers. "Truth" and "facts" are entirely subjective in the twenty-first century, after all.DesertSkies120 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)