Talk:Lady Jane Grey/Archive 3

de facto
The opening paragraph says "de facto queen of England". Cant really see how that is. Surely "de jure" if anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.107.192 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * By law (de jure), Mary Tudor was the next heir (according to Henry VIII's will as endorsed by the Third Act of the Succession). But Henry's case was unique; Edward VI's will did not have this force of law. Jane was declared by the Council and had possession of the Tower, and this gave her de facto power for the few days she reigned.  Had she lasted until Parliament was scheduled to sit in September, and if Parliament passed an Act to alter the Third Act of the Succession, then Jane would have been Queen by force of law.  History Lunatic (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

Jane of England
Shouldn't the title of this article be Jane of England? I know there are some issues with whether or not she was Queen however it seems that there is very little doubt by historians that she was Queen. I know that most articles try to use common names however for royalties it often to the contary. SeePrince Henry of Wales who is commanly known as Prince Harry. The Quill (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's arguable whether she was a queen or not. She was recognised as queen by the Privy Council (after a good deal of bribery and intimidation from the Duke of Northumberland, to whose son she was married), but not by the English people (Londoners greeted the proclamations with disdain). Her supposed legitimacy was based only on Edward VI's "devise for the succession", a hurried and contradictory document predicated on the assumption that monarchs had the right to choose their own successor. This flew in the face of English constitutional history. And though this right was assumed to arise from a statute that Henry VIII pushed through parliament to dictate the order of succession after his own death, Edward VI's devise was backed by no such statute and contradicted Henry's order of succession. Mary was quite clearly the rightful claimant to the throne, as most citizens knew by instinct (male children, then female children, of a monarch, in birth order), a political reality that the Privy Council was forced to swallow rather quickly. That Jane was recognised by the Privy Council in the Tower of London was the only jump she had on Mary, who was proclaimed simultaneously in the provinces and, however reluctantly by some Protestants, recognised there. So although on a technicality Jane may be called a queen, it is, in my opinion, far better this article be titled "Lady Jane Grey". There can be no argument that she was a lady; there can be endless argument whether she was a queen. qp10qp (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok most of that was pointless as I was asking whether or not she could be called Jane of England. I'm not bothered either way about whether or not she was Queen but I am quite bothered about this articels title. The Quill (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Jane of England" is a formula for a queen, though. Which is why I argued the point. I do not support this title, which would provoke objections and would have to be redirected to (who would search for "Jane of England" in wanting to read about her?) qp10qp (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * the Suffix; 'of England' is not an unique suffix for monarchs it was also used for members of the Royal Family. The Quill (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if they were not a prince or princess? qp10qp (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"It's arguable whether she was a queen or not." I agree with that, qp10qp, if by queen you mean Queen de jure, but there's little doubt that for a short time Jane was Queen de facto. Her claim was thin and based on little more than the Will of Edward VI, but even so it was better than that of some other European monarchs whose status isn't questioned - perhaps because they reigned for longer. I think the point about the possible "Jane of England" title for our article is that it follows the general pattern for all other English monarchs who reigned before the Union with Scotland. The Quill raises the issue of whether Jane was a princess. It may help to point out that the title of Princess wasn't used in England at the time, and even the concept is out of its time. Before they came to the throne, Jane's cousins Mary and Elizabeth were called "The Lady Mary" and "The Lady Elizabeth". Xn4 ( talk ) 02:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They also called themselves "princess": (Letter from Mary to Henry: "Your most humble daughter, Mary, princess" (Erickson, Bloody Mary 1978, p. 113). Northumberland tried to get the imperial ambassador Scheyfve to stop referring to her as a princess, but then, comically, forgot himself and sent her full arms "as princess of England, as she used to bear them in her father's lifetime". When Elizabeth was christened, she was proclaimed like this: "God of his infinite goodness, send prosperous life and long to the high and mighty princess of England, Elizabeth" (Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, 1938, p. 16). The same could not be said of Jane.


 * And it is also arguable whether Jane was de facto queen. Mary was proclaimed far more widely than Jane (Jane was massively outproclaimed, if there is such a word). Jane was in effect an anti-queen, who was only ever really recognised by a few frightened men holed up in the Tower (the list of names drawn up by Northumberland was illegitimate, based on bribery, browbeating, and intimidation). I would put her on a list of monarchs, maybe, but in small type and in brackets. More to the point, the disadvantages of changing the name of her article are too many. The naming conventions on Wikipedia are, in any case, never perfectly consistent, because the rigid rules sometimes give way to exceptions for familiar names. In this case, the majority of readers will look Jane up under her familiar name. (One could also argue that her name was Lady Jane Dudley, of course, but this too would be an unhelpful name for the article.) qp10qp (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that Jane could be classified as both de facto and de jure Queen of England. Edward VII proclaimed Jane as his successor so technically she was the legal Queen of England. The Quill (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * His "devise for the succession" was illegal. Jane's position as queen was supposedly legitimised by the signatures of the Privy Council and of various nobles and bigwigs; but Mary was being recognised by other nobles and bigwigs in the provinces. Edward had no legal right to name his successor, though he thought he did because his father had done so. Henry had done it by statute, however, and had named his children (in the end) as his heirs. So, though Henry had done this as if his word was the law, it was not a problem since his oldest son succeeded him anyway. But it was a problem for Edward to try to name a successor outside the given line, in a document that was not only anomalous (and inconsistent) but contradicted Henry's final succession act. Northumberland couldn't have his cake and eat it, as it proved. I'm not, though, saying that Jane was not a queen de facto in any sense, but that it is arguable that she was not. In my opinion, it would court problems to name this article on the basis of an arguable interpretation of her status. qp10qp (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

At that time the King was considered to be the law. It wasn't possible for him to commit a crime asuch, he could rule by Divine Right. With the support of the privy council as well this made it law even if other nobles were against the law. The Quill (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unilateral royal prerogative was never accepted in England (see Charles I). Henry and Edward thought their word was the law, but they were proved wrong. Henry at least understood that he had to have his succession choices passed through parliament by statute. But even that didn't change the order of succession. Henry tried to rule out the Scottish branch of the succession but that was illegal, and James I came to the throne in due course, despite Henry's ruling. The traditional succession overrode the word of the monarchs. Elizabeth knew this; even Mary sensed it: in the end, she did not copy Edward's trick of trying to cut a legitimate heir out of the succession. qp10qp (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't use Charles I as evidence as he was a later monarch at which point opinions had changed. The fact is Henry was never proved wrong about Divine Right. Its not ever been illegal to proclaim your successor. The fact is that Edward VII's word was taken as law and the Privy Council made it law. The Quill (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not much of a law if everyone ignores it. Laws have to be passed. That's what acts and statutes were for. Mary was legally queen, as everyone knew, even those who despised her religion. As soon as she heard of Edward's death, she wrote to the Privy Council telling them to obey her—for the few days that they did not, they were acting illegally. qp10qp (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Qp10qp. Jane was always known in history as Lady Jane Grey, not Jane of England. The latter would only serve to confuse readers. In some books on English and British monarchs, Jane isn't even listed.--jeanne (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is now less about the article name and more about whether she was a queen so I think that shoudl be the focus of this debate from now on.

Jeane boleyn, you can't use the fact that the majority ignored the law as evidence that jane wasn't queen and the law was passed by the King (as was his right at the time) and by the Privy Council. Mary is technically an upsurper, the fact that she had more right (thorough lineage ...) doesn't matter the law is the law. Unfortunatley the victor always gets to write the history. The Quill (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, it's the name of the article that is more important than whether she was a queen. The latter is debatable, and, in the end, not decidable: she was and she wasn't. History books and articles can put both sides, but the article title proposed prejudges the issue. qp10qp (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * However, unless we consider her to be (somehow) a member of the Royal family the only thing that could change the name of the article is if she was a monarch. The Quill (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not a Marian supporter, however, the whole scheme to make Jane queen was planned by Northumberland, who persuaded Frances, (who came before Jane in the line of succession), to step aside in favour of her daughter, which he had no right whatsoever to do. Even a King cannot change the line of succession without causing civil strife. Elizabeth came after Mary, then Mary, Queen of Scots, as she was a descendant of Henry's eldest sister, Margaret, while Jane was the granddaughter of Mary, the younger of Henry's sisters.--jeanne (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot or not just because a monarch get on the throne dishonestly doesn't suddenly change the fact they were a monarch. The Quill (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would add only that Jane is recognized by HM Queen Elizabeth II as Queen in this link Lady Jane Grey. It seems then that as the current monarch of England (ie: The font of all honour in the UK) recognises Jane as a Queen who "reigned for 9 days", we should also. Therefore the title of this article should be changed to Jane of England with a redirect to Lady Jane Grey. The sovereign of the UK is the authority here, not our (or any one elses') individual opnions.  fr33k man   -s-  03:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I regret to inform you that the sovereign of the UK is not the authority here, it is Wikipedia guidelines, which state that under some circumstances the name by which someone is overwhelmingly known in practice can override all other considerations. PatGallacher (talk)


 * The word of the monarch of the UK is law regarding her family, ancestors and the styles and titles of Britons, period! True wikipedia guidelines may state something different, but that doesn't alter that fact that Jane was queen and is recognized by the current queen as such.  fr33k man   -s-  06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I know her majesty has no authority on Wikipedia however this is a source which trumps (if you will) any source that says anything else. If the royal family claim that Jane was a monarch (considering they would have reasons to not delare her a monarch) means she was. The Quill (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * QEII doesn't determine the content of her website, which is full of questionable assertions and obvious errors. In any case, the queen's power doesn't extend back throughthe mists of time; if she were to opine that Jane was a queen, it would only be her opinion, which we certainly could cite in the article...if we attribute it, but it would not make Jane any more or less a queen. - Nunh-huh 11:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly believe that the Queen's servants (ie: Her webmaster) would offer up something on the royal website that was not reflective of how she felt? Interesting. I wonder if people perhaps have an axe to grind here?  fr33k man   -s-  06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside that "QEII" is a recently-mothballed ship, the real focus should be on what the readers would expect. "Lady Jane Grey" is, in the end, the most common term for Queen Jane, and so per the naming conventions, we should stick to it and so serve our readers best.
 * James F. (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the recently mothballed ship would be "QE2". - Nunh-huh 12:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Split hairs? Not helpful to the debate!  fr33k man   -s-  06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * However technically the naming covention of England should be used on this article. I am going to contact Naming conventions (names and titles) and see if they can come to a convention as currently there seems to be no consensus. The Quill (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the notice at Naming conventions and came over. I think that "Lady Jane Grey" is the most appropriate title for the article. Much of the argument above seems to be based on the misunderstanding that our naming rules are prescriptive rather than descriptive. I see a lot of argument over whether Lady Jane was de jure Queen of England, with the implicit assumption that if this can be proven, she is "entitled" to have her article at "Jane of England". That completely misses the point. The reason we have rules about how to name monarchs is so we don't wind up with "Henry IV (of England)", "Henry V of England", and "Henry VI, King of England" — so that we create consistent expectations for users as to where to find an article. Given that most readers have heard of her as "Lady Jane Grey," it's only sensible to put the article there. The use of that title in no way prejudices our views on her de jure or de facto status as Queen, any more than the location of Frederick North, Lord North denies that he was Earl of Guildford. Choess (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Most readers would type in Lady Jane Grey and expect the article to come up as such. It would be like changing the article on Anne Boleyn to Anne Rochford or Anne Tudor, or Catherine of Aragon to Catalina Trastamara.--jeanne (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why redirects exist?!  fr33k man   -s-  06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actualy as Henry married two Annes you couldn't name any article Anne Tudor as there is two of them. The thing is that I'm not certain that Lady Jane Grey is the commanly used name. The Quill (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Matilda of England. It's a similar issue. User The Quill believes that these two women should be treated as monarchs (he fights for the rights of disputed monarchs). We must maintain neutral point of view and maintaining NPOV doesn't mean claiming that these two women were undisputedly monarchs of England. Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not similar, really. Matilda was the daughter of her father,  the King.  Jane wasn't.  So Matilda's circumstances were much more like Mary than like Jane.  Matilda's campaign for support among the nobility lasted about 200 times longer than Jane's did,  and as her son became King,  she can be considered to have ultimately prevailed.   And since you are determined that the present Queen is the arbiter of all things proper,  please desist from ending your sentences with ", period!".Eregli bob (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are sources that recognise Jane as queen, but for the moment the general convention in the UK is that she doesn't count as a monarch. I would argue that today's "official" sources, such as the royal website, would have to have the final say.  Maybe one day they will change their minds and she will be rehabilitated as a monarch, but for the moment, no! Deb (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do you get that the general convention in the UK is that she was not Queen? The sovreign is the only authority in the UK over who has (or had) what title, not the public and not the government either. You need to check out what UK law has to say on the subject. You'll find it's the Queen and no one else whatsoever who determines these matters. That is UK law and always has been!  fr33k man   -s-  06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be contrary to the Act of Settlement 1701, passed by the crown in Parliament. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should revise that line. The offical sources as you call them do agree with me and anyway general convention should in no way hold priority over facts. I don't think that my points of views on whether they were monarchs should in any way affect whether the article is renamed. Article name and content are completely different matters. The Quill (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, WP:TRUTH disagrees with you on this Quill, sorry!  fr33k man   -s-  06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I really suspect that renaming the article would cause more problems than it solves. The main argument for renaming seems to be that this is "the right name", but we have plenty of precedent for cases where an overwhelmingly common name trumps a technically correct but hardly-ever used one.
 * Against renaming, we have various problems (in no particular order of importance) -
 * a) The implication that "Jane of England", a form not used by most sources, is 'correct'. I'd really want to see some heavyweight scholarly consensus for referring to her this way before we do that; a logical argument that this is how it should be isn't quite the same thing...
 * b) A broad usage favouring LJG in the 'outside world', as far as I can tell.
 * c) The implication that we're taking a position on the debate of whether or not she was queen - like it or not, this is how some people will interpret us doing the rename, and we don't want that unless we are agreed on taking a position in the debate and holding to it. LJG has the advantage of being used by both sides, so is relatively neutral here.
 * d) ambiguity; "Lady Jane Grey" is pretty clear, but Jane of England is a little vaguer - some sources refer to Joan of The Tower this way, for example. Not a major issue, though, since thankfully Jane was not an overly common name in this regard.
 * Yes, one of these is relatively trivial, but the two implications are ones we should seriously consider; if we're going to make this move, we need to be clear on what the page title is suggesting to the reader. Shimgray | talk | 19:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but consider if the page title as LJG does that say to the reader (who is the only imporant person in this debate) that this encyclopedia (a supposed source of factual knowledge) that we don't consider her to have been queen when the current monarch (ie: British law) does? Redirects exist for a reason remember. Google would still come up with LJG and our site would then redirect to JofE  fr33k man   -s-  06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, but I don't think it's a problem, because - unlike most of our naming arguments - it isn't binary, it isn't a clear-cut one side or the other case. JoE says definitely "was queen", but LJG seems to me to be used both by the people who say she wasn't queen and by a sizable amount of those who say she was. I don't have much reference material to hand, but I've certainly seen plenty of stuff like this or this, which seem happy to call her LJG whilst being definite she was queen - people are happy to use unconventional names for things they treat as special cases, I guess.
 * I've been trying to think of what the closest thing to an official establishment source would be, and I guess it's the Dictionary of National Biography - this is ambivalent on the constitutional issue, calling her LJG, "noblewoman and claimant to the English throne", but elsewhere includes her in a list of monarchs. That article was written by Alison Plowden, whose own book seems to refer to her as "Lady Jane Grey" and as "Queen Jane", which is interesting, as far as I can tell from a flick through it in Amazon - I don't know what her line on Jane's legitimacy as a monarch was, though. Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is missing, I think, the most important point: article titles should not leave a reader who knows about the subject matter wondering Who?. This is the major problem with John of England; it is worse here, since there is a clear, obvious, commonly used, and effectively unambiguous name for the subject: Lady Jane Grey. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that fact that she was and is called Queen by so many sources means that we should do so also. I'm not convinced by the arguments of those who deny her reign; if the current Queen and the history books call her (including the author of this article) Queen, then for us not to seems like we are taking sides.  fr33k man   -s-  04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jane Grey was never Queen of England. Period. Why some completist insist on trying to include her as such at Wikipedia is beyond me. Convential wisdom refers to the two little Tutors that came between the two big Tutors: no Jane. The myth of Grey as queen was largely an after the fact Protestant conceit to suggest that Mary's succession was never legit, which it clearly was. Jane's article has the succesion box which identifies her as as having "Regnal titles" and the article ridiculously mentions her "Predecessor" and her "Successor". Nonsense. Her "reign" was even more fanciful than those of the Jacobite pretnders, who nobody here seriously argues for inclusion. Charles Edward Stuart was in fact proclaimed and crowned king of Scotland on his father's behalf during the '45, which is a hell of a lot closer than Jane ever got to wearing a crown.
 * Edward VIII was never crowned either, does that mean he wasn't King? The government of the time recognized her as Queen and the King named her as such. Who are we to doubt them? The current monarch also recognizes her as Queen. It seems that there is a serious POV push going on here.  fr33k man   -s-  04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The government of the time cut her head off. Funny way of recognition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jiřì Louda and Michael Maclagan's expert book Lines of Succession states clearly on page 25 that "...the Duke of Northumberland attempted to bring...Lady Jane Grey, to the throne. The coup enlisted no popular support and Mary...became Queen." (emphisis added).
 * So what, I can come up with a source for the moon being made of cheese, doesn't make it so. I'll say it again, Elizabeth II recognized her as a queen, who are we to decide otherwise?  fr33k man   -s-  04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Lady Jane Grey is the proper title for this article. I make the above points a few times a year because this arguement never really goes away. -- Secisek (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said Secisek. Virtually all history books and encyclopedias list her as Lady Jane Grey, why should Wikipedia differ? What does The Complete Peerage call her? As I mentioned earlier, it would be like calling Anne Boleyn Anne Tudor or Anne Rochford. Jane of England would create ambiguity as well as controversy when both can so easily be avoided by keeping the article with her universally-recognised name.--jeanne (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Complete Peerage actually has less reason to mention her than you might think, as she herself was not a peer. However, when CP does allude to her, as it does in the article on her father-in-law, it seems to use "Lady Jane Grey" (though it does quote a diary which terms her "Jane the Queen" :). - Nunh-huh 07:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems that another important source (one that noble and royal watchers go to all the time for the "last word" on a subject) calls her Queen. Redirects exist for a reason.  fr33k man   -s-  04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Complete Peerage quoted its source correctly; would we did the same, but that's not "calling her Queen" in any useful sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Fr33kman, if you can come up with a WP:RS that says the "moon is made of cheese" you can enter in to the article and it will have to stand. Wikipedia has nothing to do what is "so". It is about what can be cited with a WP:RS. The sooner you learn that, the easier time you will have here -- Secisek (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPA! I have been on Wikipedia for ages and have a very good reputation as both an editor and as a member of WP:MEDCAB and WP:3 so don't, please, lecture me about 'anything!# I fully understand the rules and policies here and there are LOADS of RSs that quote Jane as Queen of England. Why do they not stand up here then?  fr33k man   -s-  02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no response from critics, I take it that some people insisting that she remain as "LJG" is nothing more than a sad POV push! It seems to me that some people have a vested interest in Jane remaining a mere moble-woman who claimed to be queen but wasn't "really queen" (even though the current queen (and the currebt UK government) recognizes her as such [and so she was legally Queen of England]). It's kinda sad that a very small number of people with a very transparant agenda can rule Wikipedia without reference to the reognized facts [ie: she was Queen, even if for only nine days). If a Pope were to reign for only nine days, he would still be recognized as Pope; Jane is not recognized because of some peoples' personal adgenda and their POV pushing!!!! Sad! it detracts from that validity of this website! We take others, such as William I to be King (merely because he was stronger and won a war [a violent action]), but not a girl who was legally designated to be queen by the lawful King of the era. We just accept Mary because she was convient at the time and today perhaps!!  fr33k man   -s-  05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are the one who pushes a certain POV. Using the most common form of the name used in English references is the main rule when it comes to naming articles and Lady Jane Grey is undisputably the most commonly used name for this woman.


 * If you want to rewrite the article in order to reflect your opinion that she was undisputably the rightful monarch for nine or thirteen days or until her death, don't be surprised by the opposition. I myself would oppose it because Jane's status is highly debated among the people who are actual experts on the subject. Here are some facts that favour Mary's claim: Jane was not legally designated as Edward's heir, because the line of succession was determined by Third Succession Act and therefore Edward's device to alter the succession was unconstitutional in its violation of an Act of Parliament. In the eyes of law, Mary was rightfully Queen of England from the moment her brother died until the moment she herself died. Comparing Jane to a pope or William the Conqueror makes no sense whatsoever. William of Normandy was crowned King of the English just like Mary was crowned Queen of England and Ireland. Coronation is the ultimate recognition of the monarch's right to rule and Jane was never crowned - i.e. she was never recognized as the rightful monarch by the Church. The pope is elected by cardinals, not by his predecessor, so this arguement is also invalid. Just because she is mentioned on the official website doesn't mean the parliament has retroactively recognized her as monarch. I don't recall Her Present Majesty ever saying anything like "Jane was queen and that's an undisputable fact". Even the official website can be quite wrong; take a look at their claim that the title of Prince of Wales can be given only to the eldest son of the Sovereign - what about George III?


 * My point is that the article is well balanced when it comes to Jane's status as a disputed monarch, perhaps even a bit biased in favour of the claim that she was an actual monarch (because of the title in the infobox and the succession box at the bottom of the article). Once again, don't expect us to agree with you when so many scholars don't agree with you. Surtsicna (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna - well, obviously, if the Royal website says that only the eldest son of the monarch can be Prince of Wales, then obviously George III was never Prince of Wales, no matter what George II and other contemporaries may have had to say about it. Because Elizabeth II gets to decide everything about who was ever monarch, and the royal website is the infallible arbiter of the Queen's decisions in this regard.  Fr33kman's points in this discussion were entirely ridiculous - I wish I'd found it in time to argue about it, because it's quite fun.  At any rate, I know the conversation is basically over, but I thought I'd weight in. In the question of whether Jane was queen, I'd say all signs point to no on both de jure and de facto, for reasons others have admirably expressed above.  Mary was queen from the time of her brother's death, and was so recognized in the vast majority of the country.  Those who claimed otherwise were behaving illegally, and Edward VI had no right to dispose of the crown as he saw fit - although obviously, if his designation of Jane as his heir had resulted in Jane successfully claiming the throne, it would be a different story.  And, once again, royal.gov.uk is completely and utterly worthless as a source for most everything. john k (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I would call her a queen, the article title should remain as it is - most common/usual way in the UK of referring to her. But the royal.gov.uk website is inconsistent. The relevant bit of the family tree doesn't have Jane's name in bold, while http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page44.asp says she was queen, and that she reigned [if only for nine days]84.64.32.70 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I lived in Britain for 2½ years; Second, our family has a genealogical association through which we found that Sirs John, Robert, and Guilford Dudley are our ascendants. In doing the research we have found collateral information on the rules of order in the empire. Lady Jane Grey, if she were alive today, would be Dame Jane Grey because she was married to a king. She was his queen. When she was forced a divorce, she became a Dowager Queen. Because she was the mother of a monarch, Edward VI, she had more claim to the throne than Mary or Elizabeth. When Lady Jane died, Mary had claim, then Elizabeth. Davjohn (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, what??? This section is oldy and moldy, but this last paragraph is thoroughly confused/wrong. 98.67.178.18 (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I know this very long discussion ended a while back, but since the question is repeatedly brought up and likely will be again, I'll just point out that while the official page for the monarchy does list Jane as a Tudor monarch, they do list her as "Lady Jane Grey." So if one argues that HM the Queen considers Jane to have reigned one must also argue that the Queen considers her official name to be Lady Jane Grey, not Queen Jane or Jane of England. History Lunatic (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic


 * I think we can be quite confidant that the queen didn't write the webpage in question, didn't edit the webpage in question, didn't read the webpage in question, and is, frankly, quite unaware of the content of that page. Nor, really, would her opinion on this historical matter be dispositive. - Nunh-huh 04:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"House of ..."
I just noticed that the lovely table at the bottom of the article stated that Jane was a member of the "House of Dorset." This was not accurate. The name of the "House" usually corresponds to the family's last name, not its title of nobility. Henry VII founded the "House of Tudor," not the "House of Richmond" (he was claimant through his father to the title Earl of Richmond before becoming king). The current queen is of the House of Windsor because her family's surname was changed during World War I to Windsor. Thus her male relatives not in the direct line of succession today are all surnamed Windsor. Queen Jane Grey Dudley was the daughter of Henry Grey, not Henry "Dorset" or (after 1551) "Suffolk." And her own maiden last name was "Grey," not "Dorset" or "suffolk." Her "House" was thus the "House of Grey," not the "House of Dorset." Or perhaps more correctly the House of Dudley, if the surname of the husband becomes the wife's surname after marriage? Afterall, the reason for changing the surname of the current British Royal House in 1917 was that it was presumed (the College of Heralds was unsure) to be either the German name Wettin or Saxe-Coburg, after Victoria's husband Albert of the German duchal House of Wettin of Saxe-Coburg. And Queen Elizabeth II felt it necessary, in light of Western marriage/name customs, to issue in April 1952 Letters Patent declaring that her descendants would bear as their surname her own English maiden name Windsor, rather than her presumed married surname of Mountbatten, the Anglicized surname adopted in 1947 by the Queen's husband, Prince Philip. PhD Historian 13:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you don't continue to say that in 1960 The Queen declared that her descendants would have the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor. Use has been inconsistent but Princess Anne was the first to use it in sigining the register at her first wedding. See the Royal Family's website for verification.What she had declared was that the Royal Family's name in general would remain Windsor. Not because (I venture) it was her maiden name but because it was the name of the Royal House. PhilomenaO&#39;M (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But even that is a new practice. In earlier generations, a queen regnant signaled also a change of dynasty, since her children would have her husband's surname. For instance, Queen Victoria was the last monarch of the House of Hanover. Her son and successor Edward VII was the first monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha simply because that was Prince Albert's house. (It was Saxe-Coburg and Gotha that was changed to Windsor by George V.) Prince Charles, having been born Charles Mountbatten in any event as he arrived before his mother's accession, would under the old rules been the first king of the House of Mountbatten. (He presumably would NOT have reverted to the name of Prince Philip's house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluksburg.) But now, short of some serious dynastic rearrangement, it's Windsor for the foreseeable future. As is only suitable now that male preference has been done away with, but the house was permanently named Windsor well before that change.


 * Relevant to the article, this suggests that had Lady Jane maintained her hold on the throne, she would have founded a House of Grey. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Marriage date
There seems to be some conflicting dates here. Eric Ives (known as somewhat of an expert in Jane) and Leanda de Lisle state that the date was May 25, 1553. The wedding was a double wedding and is already stated to be on the 25th on Lord Herbert's page with the citation from Ives. -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been a very long time since I have tried to edit this article, but I thought I might try again to resolve some of the factual inaccuracies. Regarding the date of Jane Grey's marriage to Guildford Dudley, all of the contemporary accounts express the date not in the modern terms of month and day, but rather in the traditional terms of the liturgical calendar. The French and Spanish ambassadors, all of whom were in attendance at the wedding, state that the ceremony occurred on Whitsunday, also called Pentecost (with the exception of Thomas Hoby, who was absent in the Low Countries at the time, almost every other contemporary source agrees on Whitsunday, while Hoby gives a date early in June). Whitsunday is a moveable feast, and its date is determined annually relative to Easter. According to virtually every available moveable feast calculator that I have checked, Whitsunday/Pentecost in 1553 occurred on 21 May, *not* 25 May. And this is not an OS/NS issue, since the NS date corresponding to 21 May 1553 OS is 31 May. To Eric Ives's credit, he does not give an actual date but instead states precisely what the sources state: that the wedding "took place at Whistun" (p.185). De Lisle does, however, state the date in modern terms and gives 25 May 1553. But her footnotes indicate that she chose to ignore the contemporary accounts and instead to calculate the date herself based on the assumed sequence and timing of events and on a single warrant contained in the Loseley Manuscripts. That warrant was dated 20 May 1553 and requested the Master of the Revels to provide certain entertainments at the wedding "on Thursday next" (i.e., 25 May 1553). But given that those who actually attended the wedding recorded the day as Whitsun (21 May 1553), we must accept their eye-witness testimony as more reliable than the Revels warrant. Lady Jane Grey was wed to Lord Guildford on Whitsun, 21 May 1553. I leave it to the more active editors to decide whether or not to amend the article accordingly.PhD Historian (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wearing of the physical crown
Does anyone know if Jane actually did this or if she was only awarded the title but was usurped prior to being able to adorn herself with the physical representation? 174.92.134.248 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jane never had a coronation, but apparently she was shown the real thing to try on. Buchraeumer (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

de facto monarch?
It seems more appropriate to me to call her "de jure monarch": She had a strong legal claim but with the lack of recognition and actual power, it was likely more of a "name only" situation. Correspondingly, "de facto" seems to turn the actual situation on its head. 80.226.24.8 (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By law (Third Succession Act), Mary had a much stronger claim. Thus Mary was de jure monarch. Since Jane was in London and acting as queen, I too would dub her de facto monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that they cut her head off, which would seem to argue against any power she might have had as de facto queen either ... 210.22.142.82 (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * She only had that power for a few days when even the Spanish ambassador had been sure that Mary would have no chance. However, the royal troops became illoyal because the people were still mostly catholics and, when Northumberland (Lord President of the Council), who wanted to secure his power through Jane, left London to capture Mary, the rest of the Cuncil used their chance to overthrow Northumberland and instead declared their support for Mary. (Funnyly, the German article about Jane is three times the size of the English one :) --SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Year of birth is NOT 1536/1537
Hundreds of site confirm she was born in Oct. 1537 and we know exactly when she died. So, why show date of birth as 1536/1537???? https://www.google.ca/search?q=lady+jane+grey+born&oq=lady+jane+grey+born&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.7285j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Peter K Burian (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No matter how many "sites" do it, giving Jane Grey a known birth date is quite simply an error. Neither her birth date nor birth place is known. "October 1537" is a conjectural birth date, not a known one. It will remain conjectural until actual documentary evidence is discovered. See here for further information. (note that this derives from a reliable source (Notes and Queries) rather than being merely an Internet "site".) - Nunh-huh 01:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that I did not say October in the edit of the article. Numerous sites confirm she was born in 1537. Such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lady-Jane-Grey And this one has done a lot of research.


 * '''Granted, some do say 1536. http://www.ladyjanegrey.info/?page_id=17


 * These all say 1537: https://www.biography.com/people/lady-jane-grey-9320636


 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/grey_lady_jane.shtml


 * https://englishhistory.net/tudor/relative/lady-jane-grey/


 * https://books.google.ca/books?id=j1ZjAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=lady+jane+grey+date+of+birth+uncertain&source=bl&ots=IoXsnW4Nue&sig=lBllsZDJx54XXsjegG3R_xRoawY&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwj83uTkqv3UAhUjzIMKHRpeAJQQ6AEIUDAI#v=onepage&q=lady%20jane%20grey%20date%20of%20birth%20uncertain&f=false, p=76


 * https://books.google.ca/books?id=boaYGR2H394C&pg=PA367&lpg=PA367&dq=lady+jane+grey+date+of+birth+uncertain+1537&source=bl&ots=rS8s79dr0E&sig=O81KfVk8ZebiNsZpMzJIfM6d7h8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNrpyXw_3UAhWkz4MKHT9lA8AQ6AEIRTAF#v=onepage&q=lady%20jane%20grey%20date%20of%20birth%20uncertain%201537&f=false, p=367


 * https://books.google.ca/books?id=vG7MZ9J6dAgC&pg=RA1-PA79&dq=lady+jane+grey+date+of+birth+uncertain+1537&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicjcDdw_3UAhUC4YMKHRQxDl44ChDoAQg3MAQ#v=onepage&q=lady%20jane%20grey%20date%20of%20birth%20uncertain%201537&f=false

Peter K Burian (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so there are two opinions: she was born in 1536 and she was born in 1537. We do not resolve opinions here; we report them. If you think "1536/1537" is likely to be misunderstood, I'd suggest "about 1536 or 1537" or "1536 or 1537". - Nunh-huh 01:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, The more I think about this the more I agree that we cannot specify 1537. I will fix that. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting article exploring the debate re: date of birth, with citations. Excellent research. Initially, in 2007, the writer was certain it was 1537. In the follow up note, in 2008, he has changed his view to 1536.

Lady Jane Grey Dudley remains one of the more popular figures from the Tudor period in English history. The exact date, even month, of Jane’s birth are not known, however, though the year was certainly 1537... ...While her precise date of birth must remain unknown, it seems reasonable to conclude that Lady Jane Grey was born not at the time of Prince Edward’s own birth on 12 October 1537, but rather a year or more earlier than her royal cousin, sometime in the second half of 1536.

Notes and Queries, J. Stephan Edwards, http://www.somegreymatter.com/furthernote.htm


 * As I said earlier, I agree that the year is not certain and I had already revised the text to indicate 1536 or 1537.

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Insights about the Notes and Queries article discussed above:

In his talk ‘A Queen of a New and Pretty Invention – Lady Jane Grey and the Loseley Manuscripts’ at the Surrey History Centre in October 2007, Dr Stephan Edwards argued that Jane was probably born before July 1537. His article on this subject, ‘On the Birthdate of Lady Jane Grey’ was published in ‘Notes and Queries’ in September 2007.

A follow up article, ‘A Further Note on the Date of Birth of Lady Jane Grey’ was published in the June 2008 edition of ‘Notes and Queries.’ Dr Edwards states evidence from Michelangelo Florio’s (Jane’s Italian tutor) account of Jane’s life, in which Florio states that Jane was seventeen years old at the time of her death. He concludes that Lady Jane Grey was born in the second half of 1536.

In his book, A Queen of a New Invention: Portraits of Lady Jane Grey Dudley, England’s ‘Nine Days Queen’ Edwards suggests that Jane was born in the winter of 1536/7. In his book, The Lady Jane Grey’s Prayer Book, he states that Jane was born in late 1536. http://www.ladyjanegrey.info/?page_id=17


 * This author - of a 2016 book - is also convinced the date of birth is 1536, based on the research that Notes and Queries cites - the letter by tutor Aylmer. Crown of Blood: The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey, By Nicola Tallis https://books.google.ca/books?id=B5P-CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT19&lpg=PT19&dq=Lady+Jane+Grey+date+of+birth+evidence&source=bl&ots=VrcEGy5zxE&sig=VFtoXS27ZNd8K7AMHb3adaYPoiY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjApoDE6_7UAhVm4YMKHTa0ASMQ6AEIXzAJ#v=onepage&q=Lady%20Jane%20Grey%20date%20of%20birth%20evidence&f=false


 * Many other books and the Encyclopedia Britannica still say 1537. In any event, yes, I agree: 1536 or 1537 is the correct statement and I had done an edit yesterday to that effect. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Corrected: Nine Days Queen
The Ives book used as the citation does not call her Nine-Day Queen (with the hyphen) as the text initially stated. Much of that book is available on-line.

See Ives' citations, most of which say Nine Day Queen or Nine Days' Queen, not Nine-Day Queen. https://books.google.ca/books?id=KZCMGgJzO2IC&pg=RA1-PA39&dq=Nine+Days+Queen+Eric+Ives&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiap9vL9v7UAhUm9YMKHbh-D2wQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=Nine%20Days%20Queen%20Eric%20Ives&f=false

In fact, a search on google books does not provide a single citation that calls her Nine-Day Queen (with the hyphen). https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Nine+Days+Queen++#hl=en&tbm=bks&q=Nine-Day+Queen

I have edited the text.

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death of Edward VI
The article says that Edward VI of England died of tuberculosis. But his article here, Edward VI of England, says that the cause of death is not certain and offers cardio-pulmonary infection as an alternative. This is not consistent. Perhaps the article should say that Edward probably died of tuberculosis, or that he did die of that or something with similar characteristics.

Alternatively, perhaps the cause of his death is not relevant to this article.James500 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that in this article? PatGallacher (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, we can't diagnose him any better than those who actually examined him could. This page is interesting in terms of his cause of death. But I'd like to point out that tuberculosis is a pulmonary infection and so there's no inconsistency there. - Nunh-huh 21:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)