Talk:Lady Jane Grey/Archive 2

Talk page archived
Talk page archived; link to archive provided under the infoboxes. PeterSymonds 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary and erroneous trivia
I'm not really sure what all the recent insertions of "titles" and "partileneal descent" and family trees contributes to this article. They make nice bits of trivia, and someone probably put a lot of work into them, but are they really necessary? Do they contribute anything substantive to an understanding of Lady Jane Grey? Or are they instead simply "padding"? If they are necessary, can someone at least edit them so that they are correct? (I do not have the necessary Wiki skills or I would do it myself.) Since when was Mary Tudor the daughter of Thomas Aylesbury and Anne Denman, as the genealogical table currently shows? Even Jane's "title" as queen is incorrect (the "title" currently displayed is more nearly a formula for verbal address ... for her actual "title," see the first words of her proclamation of accession, http://www.somegreymatter.com/janegreyproclamation.htm). PhD Historian (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I rather think that since her claim to the throne was based on her ancestry, it's important to include it. But it's also rather important that it be correct! (I believe it is correct now, but wonder how it got so screwed up in the first place....) Her patrilineal line is (much as it is in most articles I've seen similar items inserted into) pretty much irrelevant... It's not her "Grey" descent that's pertinent. Further, the patrilineal descent given is wrong, or at least questionable, around generation 10. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to concede including the genealogical tree as a graphic guidepost for those who might have difficulty understanding a prose explanation of her claim, but wouldn't the whole be more concise and less "messy" if it showed only the bloodline through which royalty was traced? Does the large paternal branch of the tree tell us anything about her claim to the throne? The same goes for the patrilineage that someone put so much effort into. Do we really learn anything about Jane Grey by knowing who her grandfather was ten or fifteen generations prior? Especially if it is incorrect (I've not checked her "patrilineage" myself beyond five generations ... that's enough, in my opinion)! Also, whoever created that section is simply wrong about the whole issue of "royal house." Full "Membership" (are there dues?) that includes inheritance rights in a "royal house" is determined by patrilineal descent only in countries where Salic inheritance law applies. Under Salic law, if one cannot inherit, one is not a full "member of the club," so to speak, and women cannot serve as intermediaries in the tranmission of a noble title from grandfather to grandson via the daughter-mother. Thus "patriline" - an unbroken male line. In England, Salic law does not apply. Jane's "membership" in a royal house was determined by her MATRILINEAL descent from Henry Tudor through her mother and grandmother, and the "historically correct" royal house is that of Tudor. The "House of Grey" was never a "royal house," not even when Jane was queen. Had Jane remained queen, the "royal house" would have been that of Dudley, taking the name of her husband in accordance with ancient English social custom. As evidence of the validity of this last, read up on the reasons why the current English "royal house" is today known by the name of Windsor. Bottom line: the sections detract more than the add, in my opinion. PhD Historian (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Headline change
Someone has changed the title of this article, but the new title, Jane I of England, is problematic. Virtually no one, including academic historians and history professors, ever refers to Jane Grey as anything other than "Lady Jane Grey." And she would not be known as Jane "the First" unless there had been a Jane II after her. Can I be so bold as to ask for some discussion on whether or not the new title, "Jane I of England," should remain, or whether the article should instead be titled "Lady Jane Grey"? For my own part, I am a big fan of things being factually correct ... and Jane of England is factually correct. However, one must also be practical. Wikipedia users are exceedingly unlikely to search for "Jane the Queen." They are far more likley to search for "Lady Jane Grey." As a nod to simple practicality, I am of the opinion that the article should remain under the title "Lady Jane Grey." PhD Historian 21:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, this discussion was previously held, and Lady Jane Grey was the title selected. The proper way to change the title of the article would have been to place a request at Requested moves. This would then be discussed, and the page moved to the title decided on (or left in place). Since this wasn't done, I'll move the page back to where it started from; if anyone wants to change the title, they can follow the appropriate steps (though I'd recommend against it; she's almost always referred to as Lady Jane Grey, and there's no reason to make users wonder where to find her.) - Nunh-huh 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Myths about Lady Jane
PhD Historian, you've deleted a lot of commonly-held, but inaccurate, beliefs about Lady Jane. I'm not going to disagree with the deletions from the main body of the article, because if the material is wrong, it should not be there. However... that these beliefs were/are widely held is a historigraphical fact, and it might be worth having a "Myths about Lady Jane" section which lists some of the most common incorrect beliefs/stories about her, and documents why they are incorrect and/or unfounded (e.g. the stories of the events at her execution).

Similarly, the section on her titles could usefully go into some explanation of why they are the correct ones, and some discussion (e.g. the stuff about how many married noble ladies at that time kept their maiden names). The archived talk page, and this one, both contain a fair amount of useful information which could profitably be covered briefly in the article, to explain to readers why things they are reading about her elsewhere are incorrect... Noel (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that a "Myths" section is entirely appropriate for this article. PhD Historian (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jane I
How come she is not refered to as Jane I? i mean i don't remember Edward VIII being coronated, so why does he get title of King whilst Jane is only a Lady? Seriously i need info on thisOsirisV (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as the British are concerned: [1] the heir to the throne become monarch on the death of the previous monarch; coronation has nothing to do with it. It's a nice ceremony, but it's not a necessary one. [2] A king or queen is never numbered "I" during their reign, but becomes a "I" only after there's a "II". So, it's "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom", not "Queen Victoria I of the United Kingdom" (since there's not been a Victoria since), and the first Queen Elizabeth didn't become Queen Elizabeth I until there was a Queen Elizabeth II. This is a different convention than used in most other monarchies, where, for example, there is a King Juan Carlos I of Spain. - Nunh-huh 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh is correct in saying that the heir inherits the throne immediately upon the death of the previous monarch. The coronation is much more than "a nice ceremony," however, and is very much necessary. Although the monarch is still the monarch prior to his/her coronation, the religious ritual of the anointing and crowning is a necessary process that elevates the monarch to a new semi-religious status, especially in sixteenth-century eyes. Prior to anointing, a monarch does not possess the same symbolic status and "mystique" as one already anointed. Once anointed and crowned, one's right to be king or queen was usually considered (at least until the 17th century) to be the will of God and therefore inviolate. Only the coronation ritual provided that degree of divine protection. Thus many monarchs in the English line were anxious to be crowned as rapidly as possible lest some rival claimant beat them to it and imbue themselves with the greater symbolism associated with anointing. One need only look at the dispute between Matilda and Stephen in the twelfth century to see an example of this. Or the usurpation of the uncrowned Edward V's throne by Richard III in the 1580s. PhD Historian (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Necessary" except for the fact that it isn't, then :). "Useful", perhaps, is a better synopsis than either "necessary" or "nice". My point is that the tradition of the British monarchy stands in stark contrast to the French monarchy, where the "sacre" makes the king. That distinction may become less distinct as you look further back, but it's still a clear distinction. - Nunh-huh 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Nunh-huh, we will have to agree to disagree on this point. From my studies of political cultural attitudes toward monarchy in the pre-modern period (in the English context, before the constitutional changes of 1688 and 1714), the ritual of anointing within the coronation ceremony did indeed "make" the king in much the same way is the "sacre" did for the French monarch. Legitimacy of a claim to the crown in the pre-modern period was verified by the anointing process, and the act of anointing and coronation translated that claim into secular and spiritual fact. There is a large body of literature available on the subject. I am willing to concede, however, that the French attitude toward the person of the monarch was characterized by a much greater degree of religiously-based deference than was the English attitude. French monarchs were much more successful in their pursuit of absolutist authority justified by their claim to a status as God's chosen secular representative on earth. This was in large part due to the nature of the French political and legislative structure. England's structures were much different and the political culture was far less tolerant of monarchs who pressed their absolutist claims. Charles I lost his head long before Louis XVI did, in part because he attempted to exert his claim to divine authority to rule without consultation with Parliament, an authority he considered his by right of having been anointed at his coronation. PhD Historian (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I shall content myself with your semi-agreement, then. - Nunh-huh 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actualy i added the "I" as a replacement for Queen, also cos some people type Stephen as Stephen I (according to my book on monarchy)OsirisV (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The article should not so hastily take the position that she reigned. The lists of Monarchs in many sources go straight from Edward VI to Mary I with no Jane in-between. These include a genealogical chart available from the Royal Family's website in the U.K. Other posts here admit that nobody says "Queen Jane", "Jane I", "Jane of England", or "Jane I of England", but do we not wonder WHY no one uses that language? Dare I suggest that it's because it's not clear that she WAS Queen? The basis of Mary I's accession is not that Lady Jane Grey was Queen for a week or so but isn't Queen anymore (and, if she was, we have to ask how in the absence of abdication her successor can be Queen before Lady Jane Grey is dead), but, rather, is that Lady Jane Grey only THOUGHT she was Queen, but never was. The article as written does not make it crystal-clear whether Parliament ever agreed to Lady Jane Grey being Queen. Even if Parliament agreed at one time, then it later took the position that its earlier agreement was not RESCINDED (i.e. good at the time but later reversed), but, rather, INVALID (i.e. never good, not even at the time, because of defects (such as coercion) in proceedings). If Parliament NEVER agreed to Lady Jane Grey being Queen, then is Edward VI's will (withOUT Parliament's assent) sufficient to appoint Lady Jane Grey as Edward VI's successor if Henry VIII's will (WITH Parliament's assent) appoints Mary I as Edward VI's successor? I think Mary I's legal position has to be that Lady Jane Grey was never Queen. Mary I's legal position on executing Lady Jane Grey is not "You are, arguably, the real Queen, so to be the undisputed claimant I need you to die", but, rather, is "I have been Queen all along, you were never Queen, all arguments that assert you as Queen are invalid, which makes you a traitor, for which you'll be executed."

The archived talk page has much on this, on both sides, and yet the article still says she "reigned" and was "Queen".

If the British Government does acknowledge legal papers and such from the reign of "Queen Jane", it is also taking the position that Mary I committed regicide. If Lady Jane Grey was Queen and did not abdicate, how could somebody who was NOT Queen execute the Queen for treason without committing regicide?

With James II, Parliament concocted a theory that James II's departure was constructive "abdication", which ends a reign without death. So it was never necessary to assert that James II's entire reign never happened, nor to assert that William-and-Mary had been rulers all along since Charles II's death, nor to take James's Roman numeral "II" away from him, nor invalidate all of his regnal actions. He did reign, and he then abdicated, and so now William-and-Mary reign. That's the party line. With Lady Jane Grey the party line is "She never reigned. Mary I has been Queen since Edward VI's death".

I do not say that Lady Jane was never Queen, nor that she was. I just think that Wikipedia should, as an encyclopedia, remain neutral and not so over-hastily endorse the "Jane Was Queen" faction. Before the dramatic sales increase in epochal romance-novels of the 1980s, I never saw or heard Lady Jane referred to as "Queen", only as a possibly unwilling Pretender.

Boxes by which readers hop from title-holder to title-holder should not omit Lady Jane Grey, since if she is included readers can decide for themselves whether she was a Monarch or not, and if she is omitted they won't know there is a dispute. But the successor to Edward VI could be listed as "arguably" or "tenuously" Lady Jane Grey, with Lady Jane Grey's successor being Mary I, and Mary I's predecessor being "arguably" or "tenuously" Lady Jane Grey. OR the successor-box for Edward VI could be divided in half vertically between Lady Jane Grey and Mary I, while the predecessor-box for Mary I would be divided in half vertically between Edward VI and Lady Jane Grey.

I wish to agree that the absence of a coronation has nothing to do with not being referred to as "Queen Firstname". That little of materiality or legal consequence happens at a coronation is not refuted, but, rather, is confirmed, when posts espousing the contrary notion resort to words such as "mystique" or "symbolic". The very choice of such words over words of substance tacitly concedes that coronations do not change the machinery of state. An encyclopedia should dwell (at least in history-articles) upon the real, not "mystiques" and "symbols".64.131.188.104 (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * Rather than compose a lengthy point-by-point response and refutation to our anonymous but articulate contributor's note on the validity of the title "Queen" as it applies to Jane Grey Dudley, I will simply suggest that he/she consult recent scholarship on the role of Parliament in determining monarchical legitimacy in the period before 1649 and/or 1688. I will, however, observe that the argument presented in that context is entirely moot since it assumes a circumstance that did not appertain: Parliament did not sit during or within three months of Queen Jane's reign, and thus it did not take any position whatsoever on the legitimacy of her reign. Further, the first of Mary's Parliaments likewise said nothing about the legitimacy of Jane's rule. Parliament played no role in legitimizing the reigns of monarchs prior to the end of the 17th century, making that thread of argument at best counterfactual.

He/she might perhaps also consider some of the many other English monarchs, prior to Queen Mary, who attempted to invalidate the reign of their predecessors in order (at least in part) to escape accusations of regicide. Consider, for example, Edward IV vs Henry VI and Richard III vs Edward V. He/she might also consider Mary's own prodigious predisposition for ignoring obvious realities in favor of what she wished the facts to be (e.g., the nature of her relationship with Philip). Regarding his/her statement, "Before the dramatic sales increase in epochal romance-novels of the 1980s, I never saw or heard Lady Jane referred to as "Queen", only as a possibly unwilling Pretender," perhaps he/she might consider consulting some of the histories and chronicles written before the 19th century and consider the role that re-imagining played in establishing "official" histories during the high-Victorian period. There is a large body of academic literature related to Victorian-era history writing and the construction of a re-imagined and idealized national identity. And as for implying that "mystiques" and "symbols" are somehow less "real" than "material ... substance," I wonder if our contributor remains coldly unmoved in the presence of celebrities from whatever field he/she feels drawn to? Would he/she have the same emotional "gut" reaction to chatting up his/her favorite movie star that he/she would have when chatting up a local shop clerk? Again, there is a huge body of scholarly literature on the social and cultural importance and impact of the "symbols" and "mystiques" that he/she so readily dismisses as unimportant and meaningless. PhD Historian (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then, what makes her Queen? Some people will say that at some point in his life Bonnie Prince Charlie was King. Other people will say he never was. I don't agree or disagree with either camp. If you adopt ONE set of standards for determining the question, Bonnie Charlie was King. If you adopt ANOTHER set of standards for the question, Bonnie Charlie was never King. What is the set of standards that one adopts that causes one to say "Lady Jane Grey was Queen for a short while"? Is it Edward VI's will? But the article says that that will breached the law. You say that Parliament was not sitting and so could not designate her to be Queen. So, then, what is it that causes her to be Queen? (I hope that this sounds like it is a question from someone who doesn't know something and would like to know it, and hopes you'll answer, rather than a rhetorical question in cross- examination from someone who is trying to make a point by asking a question that won't be answered. It is the former.)  64.131.188.104 (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * In the pre-modern period, monarchs were "made" or confirmed in office by one of two standards: military conquest (e.g., William I and Henry VII) or common consent of the nobility. Even though it may sound very amorphous, if a majority of the nobility favored a specific individual, that individual could be elevated to the throne. Under normal circumstances, the nobility were inclined to favor direct lineal inheritance, a pattern that usually matched their own accession to and familial maintenance of titles and status. They then expressed their favor through several mechanisms. The single most important of these was the portion of the coronation ceremony in which the assembled nobility publicly voiced their explicit affirmation of the candidate's right to wear the crown. Constitutionally, "the common people," even as they were represented by the House of Commons, had no voice in who sat on the throne. The monarch was chosen by the nobility as hereditary and "natural" leaders of the common people.


 * The nobility did occasionally set aside strict lineal inheritance on favor of collateral inheritance, if a collateral candidate was thought to be a more viable one. Such was the case with Henry IV, who became king on the basis of both consent of the nobility and military conquest, even though the direct lineal heir to Richard II was the child Edmund Mortimer. Likewise, the nobility chose (under suspicious circumstances) the adult Richard III over the child Edward V.

The Privy Council's plan to seek Parliament's input is often misunderstood today. The plan was not to gain Parliament's consent for Jane to be queen, but rather to have Parliament pass an act similar to the Henrician Acts for the Succession. This time Parliament was to empower Edward (albeit posthumously and retroactively) to devise the crown by will, a nod to the precedent set with Henry VIII. This was nothing more than a tying up of loose ends resulting from the opinion of many at the time that the Acts similarly empowering Henry limited that power to Henry alone, after whose death it reverted to its traditional holders, the nobility. It was also generally thought that the child Edward could not alter by will the succession as it had been established by Henry and his Acts for the Succession. A larger constitutional issue was being tested here: who had supreme power and final say? Crown, or Parliament? That question would not be answered until 1649 ... in 1553 it was still an open issue. This was also precisely the era in which "public opinion" began to play a much larger role in determining political outcomes, and the nobility failed to assess accurately the degree to which the "common people" favored Mary as the heir. (There were, of course, many other reasons why the reign of Jane Grey Dudley failed.)
 * In the case of Jane Grey Dudley, a majority of the nobility, together with most of the leading law officials and City of London officials, signed the letters patent drawn up by Edward VI to enact the conditions set forth in his will. It was not Edward's will that elevated Jane to the throne, but rather the consent of the nobility and other leadings officials to that will, codified through their co-signing of the letters patent. The House of Commons was, in the mid-Tudor period, still relatively easily manipulated by crown and nobility, so that it was assumed in June 1553 that there would be no difficulty in getting Parliament to ratify the terms of Edward's will at the planned September sitting ... though their consent was not constitutionally required.


 * By the late Stuart period, consent of the nobility was effectively supplanted by Parliamentary (Commons and Lords[nobility]) statute law that codified direct lineal inheritance modified only by religion.


 * Bonnie Prince Charlie cannot legitimately be considered a true king of England because he never gained the favor of an effective majority of the nobility in England and he failed in his attempts to gain that favor by military conquest. PhD Historian (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, during the short period when Prince Charles Edward Stuart was de facto ruler of a limited area, he did not claim to be king, he claimed to be acting as regent on behalf of his father. The discussion about Jane was had before, see above, this page was briefly moved to Jane I of England but moved back again. I think there was an argument here: "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc.... But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous." (From Wikipedia conventions on names and titles.) See Margaret, Maid of Norway for how a comparable Scottish dispute was handled. PatGallacher (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the monarchs of England box, which appears on several articles, takes an extreme inclusionist view by including several controversial cases: Sweyn Forkbeard, Edgar the Ætheling, Matilda, and Jane. PatGallacher (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PatGallacher that Wikipedia is taking a way to inclusive view that is outside of the mainstream. Is it not policy that we don't give equal weight to minority opinions? Jp1701a (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Is there not some way to block User 69.58.51.2 from continuing to vandalize this article? He/she has been very persistent over the past few days and seems quite determined to spoil the article. Surely there is some mechanism to protect the article? PhD Historian (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The best place to ask for assistance is Administrators' Noticeboard. They usually respond very quickly to this sort of request. qp10qp (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They have already been blocked for a week. Keith D (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
It seemed no one was keeping the article clean lately except for vandalism reversions, so I did a big tidy-up session today.

An article created on February 6 2008 titled Cultural depictions of Lady Jane Grey had not been edited since its creation with the long lists of film/TV/cartoon references. I deleted the lists, which had not been removed from the main article but were near-verbatim in the culture article, then moved the rest of the 'Representations in culture' section over there in keeping with Cultural depictions of Mary I of England, Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England, and so forth.

I also rearranged some text and cut an entirely redundant section on the succession out. I haven't looked to see which one came first, but it was as if the second one had been pasted in while completely ignoring the first section. It made the entire article much harder to read and digest. Next, I made some new headings and moved several paragraphs around for better flow to the reader and to look more like the Elizabeth and Mary articles.

I checked all the references and formatted them uniformly. I checked each EL for existence and spam; I found two or three sites that violated WP:EL and removed them, and worked the ELs to newspaper articles into the article body (two went to the 'cultural depictions' article).

It's not perfect by any means, but it's better. If everybody hates it, please don't tell me. ;-) Just kidding - please _do_ tell me. Thanks - Krakatoa  Katie  10:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work. This is a very awkward article to work on. qp10qp (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The General Sorry State of This Article
May I simply observe that over the past few months a number of zealous and probably well-meaning community editors have re-inserted into this article a very large number of items that can easily be shown to be factually incorrect? Further, much of the language is value-laden or hyperbolic, better suited to (and probably lifted from) various novels and childrens' books than to any kind of authoritative reference work. Many of the narrative details are based on popular mythology, either directly or indirectly, and not on legitimate published scholarship. The recent editing of the subject's date of birth is a prime example. That edit undid a reference to fresh academic research recently published by one of the world's leading universities and returned the citation to an outdated, non-academic but popular reference source. The result of this and many other recent edits has left this article in a particularly sorry state, such that it is largely useless as a source of demonstrably factual information. I must repeat something I have said here over and over: As long as the well-intentioned but ill-informed general public are allowed to edit articles on subjects about which they are decidedly not experts, Wikipedia will remain poorly regarded by the education community. Wikipedia is little more than an over-sized discussion group, not an authoritative reference work. PhD Historian (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from the specific issue of her date of birth, where are the problems with this article? PatGallacher (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, the account of her execution looks dubious. Alison Plowden may not be a professional historian, but her biography could be the best we have at present.  You said there was about to be a biography by a professional historian, has it come out yet? PatGallacher (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited this article, but since it lies in my field of interest, I watchlist it. PhD Historian, there’s only one answer to your frustration: undertake a fully sourced revision, take it through peer review and FAC, and then resolve to keep a close eye on the newly featured article. If you haven't the time, then pray be gentle in your criticism, because nor have most people, and we are largely a bunch of amateurs. My experience is that with tight sourcing one can hold a good article in place and swat away poor editing with ease. Few bad editors come with sources; the editor armed with a shelf of books—in your case a library of them—prevails. If you’re prepared to rewrite this article, I will back you up fully and help protect the integrity of the result. I don't have any material specifically on Jane, as such, but I do have six or seven books on Edward VI and Mary, and many on Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, on the English Reformation, and on various Tudor topics. I have a history degree, I don't do popular history, and I am reasonably stalwart. What do you say? qp10qp (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder in what regard the account of her execution looks dubious other than that it is near contemporary protestant propaganda? I'm not a historian but I do happen to have a family copy of Foxes Book of Martyrs open next to me and the quotes attributed to the 1850 Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary are identical to the account at p1293 in my 1610 edition which in turn looks the same as the 1563 edition transcribed at http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/main/10_1563_0919.jsp. Perhaps some Wikipedia expert could update the reference - I daren't edit the main page myself, especially after the comments about amateurs! --S solt (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For examples of how Wikipedia has managed to deal sensibly with issues where there is an element of doubt or dispute, see the birthplace of Robert I of Scotland and the death date of Edmund the Martyr. PatGallacher (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who put in the October birthdate by dint of most biographies having stated that month. Just because a person is not armed to the teeth in dubious degrees in history, etc. doesn't mean you need to belittle the years of research on the Tudors that I have done. What's more phd, new information does not necessarily mean correct info, unless your source travelled back in time and witnessed Jane's conception.jeanne (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor should you belittle research scholars, few of whom, in my experience, are "dubious". Their job is to review original evidence (travelling back in time is not necessary), and it is normal for them to make findings that revise assumptions.


 * However, all that is needed in this article is balance. At the moment the text itself is balanced, but the traditional date needs sourcing so that the Notes and Queries footnote is counterweighted. The reader might also be interested in an explanatory note on the issue. I would. qp10qp (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just have no patience with those who flaunt their degrees in other's faces and expect those same people to be awed.I am not and I still abide by the 5 october 1537 date, in spite of my degree-less statusjeanne (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As to her father being away in Jan.1537 that was likely 1538 due to the old calendar system.As for Anne Boleyn, I've seen a precise date for her 5 May 1501, but it was deleted from article when I added it as I hadn't shown adequate proof.12:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)


 * What I've done is to add a reference for the October 1537 birthdate from Taylor and place his useful book in the bibliography. Both text and notes are now balanced and sourced. As far as Wikipedia goes, that should be the end of the argument, since our job is merely to report in a neutral way. qp10qp (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Remove, having read some more of the book. qp10qp (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I had let it go until this morning, when our esteemed, self-titled historian sent me an insulting message on my talk page. Therefore, I'm going to insist that his work on Jane Grey be disregarded as it is nothing but original research on his part. I can provide numerous references to the October 1537 date, whereas, he's only using his personal opinions based on private research which is out of place in an encyclopedia. And, may I add that the next time our PhD calls me uneducated because of a personal belief and the fact that I may have made a grammatical error whilst replying in the heat of the moment,I shall have no qualms about reporting him for incivility. I'm not in the least bit intimidated by his academic status. It would behoove him to know that Wikipedia is a global effort which is open to academics as well as blue-collar workers. 11:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)


 * PhD's findings are not original research for the purposes of Wikipedia, because he has published them in academic journals, and the information is cited properly. We are lucky to have him contributing here with the latest research: Britannica should be so lucky. On the other hand, the later date is also represented in published books, and PhD's information should be counterbalanced, giving the reader the full picture. Only when future books have followed PhD can Wikipedia favour the later date. qp10qp (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive my persistence but what I am asking for is how he discovered this new information? For example, an American author ,Retha Warnicke insists that Anne Boleyn was born in 1507. Most other biographers favour the 1501 date just as I happen to, based on known facts and plain old logic. What I'm getting at is this, just because a historian comes out with a new set of facts, how can we be sure they are correct and not just an excuse to write an article to gain international recognition for his alleged "discoveries".Also, anyone can arrive at Wikipedia claiming to be a doctor, a renowned author or Prime Minister even!jeanne (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not about the editor's claims, it is about the material published in the referenced source. We are each no better than our edits. Both you and PhD need to grasp that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. You may disbelieve each other's dates, but so long as they come from published sources, both dates belong in the article. This is normal: where evidence clashes, the alternative interpretations should be presented to readers. qp10qp (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This topic has been discussed to the point of sheer exhaustion. Now let me get back to a far more polemic article that I am currently editing, namely the John F. Kennedy Assassination.jeanne (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward's will
Regarding RockStarSchiester's recent edit and his contention that Edward's will was not valid on account of his age: This is a very common misunderstanding of the actual circumstances. The will was not published alone. Rather, Edward drew up letters patent and coerced the Privy Council, principal law judges, and several official of the City of London into signing those letters ppatent. The letters patent specifically upheld the will as legal and valid, despite the dying king's age. Such an act of nullifying the qualification of age was wholly and correctly within the power of the crown. What was not within the power of the crown was the ability to set aside prior acts of Parliament. Edward's will was invalid because it directly violated the Act for the Succession of 1543/4, not because he was too young to make a will. PhD Historian (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Which would imply that Jane never was Queen according to law.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Contracts
The contracts for marriage section is self-contradictory regarding a potential marriage between Edward and Jane. Hgilbert (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was Frances Brandon passed over when Edward gave Jane the crown on his deathbed? PatGallacher (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that Northumberland had previously convinced Frances to give up her succession rights in favour of Jane.--jeanne (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Heiress
The very last section of the article states that Jane was preceded as heiress to the throne by Mary, & succeeded by Lady Catherine Grey. I have to ask why; not because I don't understand that Mary very pointedly didn't recognize Elizabeth as her successor, but I also know that Elizabeth didn't recognize Catherine as hers. It seems to me that the criterion for one must be upheld in the case of the other.FlaviaR (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed pic
I removed this picture on the grounds that this is not in fact a picture of a painting that is sometimes claimed to depict L.J.G. What this is is an engraving after a pain ting (of which we don't seem to know the whereabouts) which.... well, it's anybody's guess because this isn't the painting.

I have found, and referenced the painting that the other engraving pertains to. There is a good chance that the pic that I have reference actually is Lady Jane Grey.

As far as I'm concerned, two engravings based on paintings is quite sufficient. Nobody knows, but it does look very much more similar to the known painting of Catherine Parr.

Amandajm (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong picture or?
Counting from the top, the fourth picture is named Catherine_Parr.jpg. The description says "Catherine Parr, mistaken to be Lady Jane Grey". Can you please check cuz the article says the picture is "Lady Jane Grey or Catherine Parr". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.201 (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just come up in the article again. Verbatim text removed for consideration:


 * The portrait opposite has recently been identified as Katherine Parr by the large jewel she wears. Historians were also in doubt that it was Jane as she was only 16 at the time of her death and the woman in the portait looks older.


 * If it's Parr, shouldn't the picture go? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Bernardoni, for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Testatory
Sorry I'm not a regular contributor and I don't know the rules for such. I happened to be reading the article and I encountered difficulty. Under the section titled "Claim to the Throne and Accession" I encountered this sentence which had a word "testatory" which despite IMHO having a pretty good vocabulary I had never heard of that word. So I looked it up and found it to be a very rare word meaning something like "bearing witness." This is the sentence in the article: "This may have contravened customary testatory law because Edward had not reached the legal testatory age of 21." I found it confusing, again I apologize I am not a regular editor here just a humble reader but my thought was, for the good of the Wikipedia project, is there a better word that won't stop the average reader and make him/her go to the dictionary to understand the information in the article. Thank you for considering my input. Regards, -Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.115.90 (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Testatory" (tess-TAY-tor-ee) means, "of or pertaining to a will."  Serendi pod ous  22:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey's relationship to Edward VI
I believe Lady Jane's relationship to Edward VI would be correctly referred to as first cousins once removed. As the granddaughter of Edward's aunt, Princess Mary, Jane and Edward were not of the same generation. In fact, Jane's mother, Lady Frances, and Edward were first cousins, making Jane and Edward first cousins once removed.

Mhrogers (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The 15-year-old child
"this was a 15 year old child, brought up to be devoutly religious, hardly a brilliantly open, creative mind!! One biased novelist does not make a reliable source"

I understand your emotional reaction as being quite natural. Who would think that an ordinary 15-year-old would be much of anything but a totally delightful giggly adolescent girl? I suppose at one level Jane was that or would like to have been that. However, you are not taking into account the phenomenon, well-known and well-documented, of a prodigy. Can a 4-year-old learn integral calculus? Can a child compose symphonies? Well, mainly no. But, some of us can do and have done that. It is in fact possible. You might get a clue from the fact that at age 16? Lady Jane was made queen with the full expectation that after an initial period of her mother's guidance she would be a good one. Nothing in the 9-days rule belies that expectation. Jane fell victim to the struggle between Catholics and Protestants, nothing less. But, you are not seeing the big picture, my friend (or friendess, whatever). Take a good look at Henry VIII and his family. Despite his tragic and misguided treatment of his queens - a position into which the society of the times forced him and for whom they seem to have had little sensitivity or compassion - he had been in his time one of the best and most capable kings ever. When he chose his women he did not pick the least capable and giddiest young ladies of the realm. His children were NOT ordinary, they were among the most capable society had to offer and extraordinary educational care was lavished on them with the full expectation that any one of them might be asked to rule. As it turned out they needed every bit of talent just to stay alive. The last left alive was scheduled for the same fate as Lady Jane but a stroke of luck (or providence) made her Queen Elizabeth I. This vivacious and brilliant red-head led England through some of its most difficult times. Now, this band of cousins, so to speak, which was forced into battle with life and society at an early age, was in fact known for its linguistic talent, interest in and ability with the studies that went with the social position. The best tutors pulled from Oxford were astounded. This is by definition prodigious. Your own reaction is skepticism and I have no doubt were you to look further into the matter your disbelief would turn to the same wonder expressed by the tutors. Don't forget also that some people are not allowed to have shy and giddy puberties but are thrust into difficult positions at an early age. There have been a lot of those, male and female. Alexander, who had Aristotle as a tutor, when he died as a young man in his 20's, had conquered a huge empire, demonstrating a prodigious military, social and political judgement. I feel bad for Lady Jane. She paved the way for her equally brilliant cousin Elizabeth. In view of these circumstances I am not only keeping what was said but I am supplying the references for which you asked. Moreover, you seem to have Wikipedia-itis. You are so used to supplying your own off-hand opinion that you think it is always right. I say old chap (or chapess, whatever), do your homework first. One biased novelist indeed!Dave (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The footers, the footers
Those bands that go across the page and can be expanded, well, those were designed to go across the bottom. The situation here is made complex by the fact that a succession box is present. The administrators gave us the succession box and they blocked access to the templates to all but administrators. The problem is, you can't adjust the width of a succession box. I would put in a width parameter but I cannot access the code. Why couldn't you use an infobox? Well, no matter, but unfortunately most bottom boxes go across the page. Now, if multiple bottom boxes are present, they form a terribly ragged bottom. I find that unprofessional looking and unesthetic. The succession box sequence clearly has to go at the bottom after the other bottom boxes. You will be sseing this notice in many other ragged bottom articles. You've heard of ragged right, right? No one ever sees ragged left. This is ragged bottom and no one should ever see that either.Dave (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not tried this out but Navboxes looks as though it can wrap the succession boxes and display them at full width. It may be worth experimenting to see if it gives you what you are looking for. Keith D (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried reordering it for the time being, to be narrow-wide-wide rather than wide-wide-narrow, which whilst still a bit suboptimal looks less awkward. Shimgray | talk | 11:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Which Seymour was charged?
The last sentence in the section quoted below seems as though it may be grammatically at odds with what it's trying to convey. It reads as though Thomas Seymour's brother Edward Seymour "was charged with proposing . . . ."  I think what is intended is that Thomas Seymour was the one charged. As the next paragraph of the article says, Thomas Seymour was convicted by attainder and executed. Alternatively, maybe the sentence means "charged" in the sense of given an assignment, rather than accused of a criminal offense. If that's the case the sentence may be correct, although to this non-historian reader it's bit confusing.

After Henry VIII died, Catherine Parr married Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley. Catherine died shortly after the birth of her only child, Mary Seymour, in late 1548, leaving the young Jane once again bereft of a maternal figure. Jane acted as chief mourner at Catherine's funeral. Jane returned to her parents after Catherine Parr's death, yet Seymour showed continued interest in her, and she was again in his household for about two months when he was arrested at the end of 1548.[9] Seymour's brother, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, who ruled as Lord Protector, felt threatened by Thomas' popularity with the young King Edward, and was charged, among other things, with proposing Jane as a royal bride.

69.61.171.66 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Gerald Weigle, 13 February, 2010
 * I agree it's very confusing to the reader and should be corrected to specify which Seymour brother was actually charged.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it has since been corrected, and now it makes sense.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Jane was Quene regnant"
Since there are disagreements over her status, it is obviously against NPOV policy to state so determinedly: "Lady Jane Grey was Queen regnant of England and Ireland..." What's wrong with a neutral statement such as "Lady Jane Grey is sometimes considered to have been Queen regnant of England and Ireland..."? The lead hardly makes any place for the doubt about her monarchical status and that's wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the best way to work around this status problem&mdash;which is hardly ever addressed by historians and therefore must not preoccupy us at WP&mdash;is to reformulate why she is notable in the first sentence (WP:MOSBEGIN). Something like: Lady Jane Grey was an English noblewomen who was executed for having occuped the English throne between 10 and 19 July 1553." She is most notable for being executed at a young age and for having been considered by "some" Protestants as a martyr. "What's wrong" with "Lady Jane Grey is sometimes considered to have been Queen regnant of England and Ireland..." is that it is an example of WP:WEASEL and not "a neutral statement" at all, implying that it is somewhat WP:FRINGE to say that she occupied the throne, which is not the case. No historian claims that England had another monarch than Jane between Edward's death and the proclamation of Mary by the Privy Council on 19th July 1553, nor is the word Interregnum used by anyone for this period of time. There are quite a number of documents Jane signed as Queen throughout her tenure and there was an administration operating in her name, when there was no such thing in Mary's name before 20th July. A recent as well as a forthcoming biography (by de Lisle and Edwards, respectively) argue that Jane played the part of queen activley and committedly. BTW, Encyclopedia Britannica online and Columbia online have no problem calling her queen in their first sentences in their otherwise dreadfully outdated articles. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So come up with something that you believe is neutral. This biography by Eric Ives says that she was a monarch and that she wasn't a monarch at the same time. We shouldn't choose one view and ignore the other. Ives says: "We have to turn tradition on its head and recognize that it was not Mary but Jane who was the reigning queen; her so-called 'rebellion' against Queen Mary was, in reality, the 'rebellion of Lady Mary' against Queen Jane. Mary's achievment was...the single occasion when the power of the English crown was successfully flouted [between the 14th century and the 17th century]. She alone of all the challengers succeeded in taking over government, capital and country, and in so doing ousted an incumbent ruler who had all the state's resources behind her. Had Mary failed as was expected, Jane Grey would have been the fourth monarch of the Tudor line..." In the first part, he considers Jane a queen - in the last part, he considers her a "would've-been monarch". Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But it's you who chooseth to decide the issue (by ignoring that she acted as queen), not I. I specifically suggested how we could avoid this question in the introductory sentence, as it is a moot point for any serious historian. So much to your "So come up with something that you believe is neutral." The problem remains that the first sentence (as of now) is weasellish and gives a distorted picture to the normal reader. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the former lead sentence was much worse, as it gave an incomplete and biased picture to the normal reader. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead is poorly written
I think the lead could do with a complete rewrite. It contains too many dashes, and some of the sentences are awkward.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Place of birth?
In this article it says that Jane was born in Bradgate Park in Leicestershire. However, the statement lacks a source. In Leanda de Lisle's The Sisters who would be Queen (Harper Press 2008) it says that Jane was actually born at Dorset House, the Strand, London. (pp 5-8) What's correct? Is there a source for Leicestershire, or should it be exchanged for Dorset House, London? /--Idunius (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Bradgate Park has been the traditional place ever since Victorian times and is mentioned in most books; de Lisle is probably right as regards this point, so it should be probably mentioned that there are now alternative locations, or so. A whole lot of things regarding Jane are in effect Victorian myths. While undoubtedly debunking many such relatively simple myths, on a wider scale de Lisle herself has a tendency to be very free with material, generally without making this sufficiently clear. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would "Jane, the eldest daughter of Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk, and his wife, Lady Frances Brandon, was born at Bradgate Park in Leicestershire or, as is suggested by recent historiography, at Dorset House, the Strand, London"(ref) be ok?--Idunius (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to list the alternative birthplace, especially in light of Jane's October 1537 birthdate having been recently debunked by historians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Eric Ives (p. 36) writes we do not know whether she was born at Bradgate. With most people of that era we don't know where they were born. If we don't know the month/year, it follows we can't know the place. Buchraeumer (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey
Lady Jane Grey lived from 1367 till the 12th of February 1554. She is famous because her family and herself all owned a building called Shute Barton in Shute and now it is an old monument in Shute. In Shute it is one of the most famous and old buildings there. It is now been taking care by the NHS. Her Family Bloody Mary her 1st cousin Queen Elizebeth her aunt Her Death Blooy Mary executed her when she was queen. Lady Jane Grey was executed at the age of 16. The Mystery There was an mystery of how Lady Jane Grey looked until somebody discovered a painting then now people and artists are painting paintings of Lady Jane Grey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.39.22 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From 1367 to 1554, huh? That's very impressive! She'd be more famous for that than anything else! ~ HammerFilmFan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.178.18 (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised nobody has bothered to delete the ludicrous, unhelpful commentary made back in October 2009!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Author adding his own book
Can any knowledgeable and independent editor comment on the value to the article of The Documents of Lady Jane Grey, Nine Days Queen of England, 1553? There seems to be a WP:COI in that it's being posted here by the author and members of his family. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say the value to this article of this book is nil, since (from amazon reviews) it seems to rely heavily on an 18th century collection of ficticious material, available at archives.org. These "letters" are clearly 18th century fabrications and, AFAIK, have not been taken seriously by Jane's biographers of the last 100 years or more. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Professor Eric Ives even mentions the Taylor book in question when dealing with "historical fiction"; he describes the 1791 book as an "early instance" of the latter: "It is full of letters between Jane and individuals real and fanciful, including a 'Lady Laurana de M' who was supposedly in love with Edward Courtenay. As recently as 2004 these were republished as possibly genuine, despite the publisher having been the William Lane who made a fortune from the Minerva Press 'gothic' novels which Jane Austen satirized." (Eric Ives: Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery, 2009, p. 284, with footnote 38 on p. 340, where he gives "J . D. Taylor, Documents of Lady Jane Grey (New York, 2004) as the source). Buchraeumer (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Jane of England"
Jane Grey is a oficial queen of england, on oficial page of British Royal House is wroten it. Jane must be known as Jane of England don´t as Lady Jane of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CORTEZ-MEDINA (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was curious about this myself. I found this link from the Official Website of The British Monarchy, and Lady Jane is listed among the Tudors as having "reigned for only nine days".  Wouldn't the Royal Family be the ultimate authority in this case?  just Eleos  19:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, the same website refers to her as "Lady Jane Grey" rather than "Jane".  just Eleos  20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ascham ref missing
The biblio entry seems to be missing for the ref "Ascham 1863" - ie, there's no details about this ref (is it a book?)  Chzz  ► 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put this into "surname first", like the others; it was "Roger Ascham" --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jane declared queen in Gloucester?
I have not commented on wiki before, so please excuse any errors.

There is no mention of it in the article, but there is considerable rumour that Lady Jane Grey was declared Queen from the raised gallery inside the New Inn, Gloucester. Is there any historical evidence for this? If so, it could be mentioned within the article. I lived in Gloucester for several years and once enjoyed a lengthy stay at the New Inn - it is an amazing building (especially considering the state of the majority of Gloucester) and deserves mention IF there is any supporting evidence. The staff and management back in the 1980's certainly believed it to be the case. Would be interested in feedback.

Brambledog (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, she had been seventeen; but, the discussion page seems to indicate sixteen, fifteen, or whatever. She was killed for theology? That should be specified, in a clear statement. What is the history of England killing based on theology? That should be an article on its own. What would happen in the current millennium? The article should link to regnant.

hopiakuta  Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 16:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Engraving
There is no known actual portrait of Jane Grey and the best depiction is the one that is at the top of the page. The engraving at the bottom of the page saying it is based on an earlier portrait of her -- are they talking about the NPG portrait that has been ruled out because that is what the engraving looks like; a copy of the NPG. Please see: Van de Passe Portrait It is quite clear that the brooch in the picture is that of the one used in the portrait for Queen Catherine Parr; which is specifically listed and described in the inventory of the Queen's jewels via this article and the actual list which is included in "Works and Correspondences" by Katherine Parr which was released last year. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mary Tudor's father
In this history, it is stated that Mary Tudor was the daughter of Henry VII. "Henry VII's younger daughter, Mary". Of course, she was not, but rather the daughter of Henry VIII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.71.67 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lady Jane's maternal grandmother was Mary Tudor, Queen of France, Henry VII's younger daughter. Henry VIII's eldest daughter was Mary I of England, also known as Mary Tudor. The latter was childless.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

First queen regnant?

 * The article says that Jane was recognized as England's first Queen regnant, but should't that honour go to Matilda of England? She was the daughter, and only surviving legitimate child of King Henry I!--jeanne (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You said recognized as England's first Queen regnant. Well, that honour should go to Mary I. After all, Mary I was the first female monarch of England whose monarchical status is not disputed by any scholar, while there are numerous scholars who dispute either Matilda or Jane or both of them. Surtsicna (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although Matilda's right to the throne was challenged, and she was subsequently dispossessed, by Stephen of Blois, nevertheless, as the legitimate daughter of Henry I, Matilda was the rightful successor to the English throne. When I visited Arundel Castle many years ago, the tour guide referred to Matilda. as England's first female Queen regnant.--jeanne (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Matilda was undoubtly the rightful heir (not monarch) of England, but as long as the majority of scholars cosider Mary I to be the first female monarch of England, we cannot claim that Matilda was Queen of England (let alone the fact that she never used that title). Anyway, I find Pitt Taswell-Langmead, Ashworth, Tyerman, Crawford, and other authors more accurate than tour guides. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mary I is considered the first undisputed Queen regnant of England. Afterall, hadn't Henry VIII growled that England had never be ruled by a woman before, during his eagerness to have a son? GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Henry II's claim to the throne was through his mother Matilda, also many of the nobles considered her their rightful queen. In point of fact, Robert of Gloucester, was one of her most loyal champions. I don't deny that Stephen duly became a monarch of England, but Matilda's place cannot be ignored. I would consider her an uncrowned Queen regnant, but that's just my humble opinion.--jeanne (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly, it is just just your opinion because she is never (or rarely ever) included in the lists of English monarchs, leading to the conclusion that scholars do not consider her monarch of England. Haven't you noticed that there has been only one princess named Matilda since Empress Matilda and that there hasn't been any princess of England or Great Britain or the United Kingdom named Jane since Jane Grey? That's because the English and British monarchs themselves are not sure whether Matilda and Jane should be included in the numbering of monarchs. The fact is that Matilda was the rightful heir, but Stephen was crowned and Stephen reigned. Let's just remain neutral and keep the factual accuracy. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree that we cannot change the article to say Matilda was Queen regnant, despite my personal opinion, the same goes with Jane Grey. As for Princesses of England and Britain not being named Matilda or Jane, that's probably due to the naming fashion of the times as well as superstition. Matilda or Maud was rarely used after the 14th century, and although Jane replaced the widely popular Joan in the 16th century, it was probably not used by the royals due to the fate suffered by Jane Grey and therefore considered unlucky.--jeanne (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, we've got Matilda & Jane listed (with dispute notes) at List of English monarchs article. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So I see. Hmm, I suppose it's really a matter for scholars to decide. I've stated my opinion but I'm definitely not a scholar so it's not of any relevance what a lay person thinks.--jeanne (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Royal children's names, the names John, Stephen, Thomas, and Richard are never chosen for Royal children, despite those being among the most common in England for the past 700 years.--jeanne (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard is not avoided, as far as I know (Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester?), and John is avoided only since the death of The Prince John. Stephen is definitely avoided and Thomas was never a popular name among the royals. My point is that the names Matilda and Jane are avoided because it's not certain whether Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey should be considered in reckoning regnal numerals. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then by your reckoning the name Stephen is and has been avoided for precisely the same reason, being that Stephen usurped the throne of Matilda, who was indisputedly the rightful heir to the Kingdom of England.--jeanne (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Matilda was indisputedly the rightful heir to the Kingdom of England and was recognized as such during her father's lifetime, but Stephen was undisputedly monarch of England from the death of Henry I until his own death. We all agree that scholars are those who have to decide who was the rightful monarch and I've never seen a list of English monarchs that excludes Stephen. Surtsicna (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As there was a civil war which lasted a number of years, I don't know how you can say that Stephen's reign was undisputed.  I checked four older history books,  two of them list Matilda in the annals of rulers, two don't.   None of them include Jane.Eregli bob (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither have I.--jeanne (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Date of father's execution
This article gives the date of her father's execution as 19 February 1554. However her father's page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Grey,_1st_Duke_of_Suffolk gives his date of execution as 23 February 1554. They can't both be right. I think... Or is this OS/NS? Surely that came much later? Riverwood (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC) I should point out that this near the end of the 'Trial an Execution' section.


 * I don't think it's a calendar confusion: 19 Feb 1554 Julian would be 1 Mar 1554 Gregorian. Henry Grey was executed in the Tower of London on 23 February 1554, per Cokayne's Complete Peerage.  At first I thought that 19 Feb 1554 might be the date on which he was attainted, but in fact that was on  17 February 1554. I'll correct the date in this article with an appropriate citation. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wyatt's Rebellion was not in behalf of Jane
Jane was convicted of high treason and condemned to death for usurping the Crown in November 1553, she was not the "centre of rebellion" in February 1554. The Wyatt rebels probably wanted to make Elizabeth queen, and furthermost wanted to prevent Mary's Habsburg marriage, as wanted most of the country, including parliament. Mary's government claimed the rebellion was in favour of Jane as a propaganda lie to kill the young people; English historians have never taken this seriously. More to the point, Jane is notable for having been executed very young and not for her imprisonment. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, everyone can calculate her age, so there is no reason fill the lead sentence with the years of her birth and death and her age at the moment of her death. Secondly, doesn't my wording solve the problem? "...she was imprisoned for having occupied the throne and [was] subsequently executed". Surtsicna (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The stated reason for Wyatt's rebellion was to prevent the coming of a Spanish king (and therefore the further entrenchment of Catholicism); this was not unjustified, as Philip was granted the title of King and his name appeared with Mary's on all official documents for the duration of her reign. To depose Mary, much less the thought of who to replace her with, was not a stated purpose as the rebellion never got that far. Wyatt exonerated Elizabeth from having any part in the rebellion.

As far as the Jane Grey angle, her father the Duke of Suffolk participated in Wyatt's rebellion, but just barely (he raised 140 men). The bigger issue that led to the execution of Jane and her husband Guildford was that after Wyatt's rebellion, Spain took the position that it would not be safe for Philip to come to England when rebellion still lurked and pretenders still lived (and up to this point, Mary was actually looking for a good time to release Jane from the Tower). In order to lay eyes and hands on her new husband, Mary had to get rid of claimants to the throne. Elizabeth had too much support as heir and was legally heir by Henry VIII's will and by Act of Parliament. Jane, however, had negligible support and worse, had usurped Mary's place once already; she had to go.

This was much the same position Henry VII found himself in during final negotiations of the marriage of his heir Prince Arthur to Catherine of Aragon. For England to be considered stable and safe from rebellion, Henry had to execute Perkin Warbeck and Edward Earl of Warwick. Spain had no desire to marry into a royal family that had a serious possibility of losing its throne, especially with the War of the Roses a not-to-distant memory. History Lunatic (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic