Is Lady Jane Grey a Legitimate Monach?

Nytram01 · Jul 17, 2016

In the counting of English Monarchs Lady Jane Grey is often included as a legitimate Queen during the Tudor dynasty. Does she deserve this?

She was appointed heir by the ailing Edward VI in an attempt to keep the throne in the hands of a protestant monarch instead of Edward's eldest sister - the catholic Mary and her Spanish husband Philip - and proclaimed Queen four days after his death. However, she was never crowned and her reign lasted only nine days.

Can she be counted as a legitimate English Monarch, or should she be regarded as a pretender?

VVD0D95 · Jul 17, 2016

She was named as the King's heir, and was proclaimed as such, and she did have support for those nine days, I'd say yes. In the same vein as Matilda being a legitimate monarch.

Geordie · Jul 17, 2016

I vote No.

Iirc, she was recognised as Queen by two towns - King's Lynn and Berwick, I think. Even in court, I seem to recall that her support was very limited, hence lasting all of nine days. She was never crowned, and never reigned. At best, she belongs in brackets or a footnote at the end of the entry about Edward VI.

Mary succeeded Edward, it's just there was a slight hiccough in the whole "The King is dead, long live the Queen".

desmirelle · Jul 17, 2016

She was named the successor to Edward VI; why should his choice of successor be any less legitimate than his predecessors? Now, given the times, she was unable to hold the throne and thus becomes a 9-day wonder; but she was a legally named successor to Edward VI by Edward VI himself. Ergo, she was a legitimate (never crowned) queen of England.

Edward V was declared a bastard and never crowned; he's included - she's at least as legitimate a monarch as he was. Stop ignoring the womenfolk....

Emperor Constantine · Jul 17, 2016

No. Edward VI did NOT have the right to name his own heir. Now he could have had an act of Parliament passed disinheriting Mary and Elizabeth, which would have been legal and correct, but he didn't have enough time to do so. Everyone understood her so called "accession" as an attempted coup against the rightful heiress, Mary I. Though she was 4th in line at the time of Edward VI's death, her reign had as much legitimacy as the Anti-Kings in the Holy Roman Empire.

desmirelle · Jul 17, 2016

When did Kings stop having the right to name their heir? I thought that wasn't until after Oliver Cromwell.

Mikestone8 · Jul 17, 2016

desmirelle said:
When did Kings stop having the right to name their heir? I thought that wasn't until after Oliver Cromwell.

Strictly speaking they never really had. The Anglo-Saxon kingdom was elective, though the previous monarch's wishes often carried a lot of weight. Things were more confused after 1066, with Norman kings treating England more like private property, but after a century things were starting to settle down, and by 1216 Henry III was accepted despite being only nine years old, and thereafter the throne passed from father to eldest son until 1399. Thence until 1688 disputes were mostly limited to arguments about who had the best hereditary claim.

Alcsentre Calanice · Jul 17, 2016

What is a legitimate monarch? A monarch that is accepted as such by his people and the world. Was Jane accepted by these groups? I don't think so.

Londinium · Jul 17, 2016

I vote no. Not only was her 'Accession' for only nine days, and it went against both primogeniture & Henry VIII's Will, but ALSO she herself was destined to be little more than a puppet to be manipulated by her husband, parents and in-laws. There is little if any evidence that she attempted to defy any of the above- save for her strong, initial objections to being proclaimed Queen which she soon found herself completely overwhelmed (and there seems to have been no one around who attempted to assert her ability to rule ENTIRELY on her own). Yes, she got proclaimed but few if any of the subjects beyond the conspirators themselves recognized her as such during that time even if they later became upset and furious over her later execution. Agree that she was, at best, a tiny Grey comma sandwiched in the Tudor paragraph of British history.

desmirelle · Jul 17, 2016

By these standards, Edward V wasn't a legitimate monarch, either. Parliament kicked his ass out for being a bastard. I say she was a monarch, but a terribly unsuccessful one. So, if that's the standard, take E5 off the list as well.

Emperor Constantine · Jul 17, 2016

desmirelle said:
By these standards, Edward V wasn't a legitimate monarch, either. Parliament kicked his ass out for being a bastard. I say she was a monarch, but a terribly unsuccessful one. So, if that's the standard, take E5 off the list as well.

Unlike Jane Edward V was granted posthumous recognition as a legitimate monarch by parliament when Titulus Regius was repealed. Plus Edward V was the legitimate heir for his entire life, unlike Jane. Basically history is written by the victors and no one had any interest in legitimizing Jane Grey's "reign".

Finally, Edward was no bastard. The evidence was flimsy at best and his deposition was more due to the elite's hatred of his mother's family the Woodvilles. He was as much a bastard as his father Edward IV was.

Mikestone8 · Jul 18, 2016

desmirelle said:
By these standards, Edward V wasn't a legitimate monarch, either. Parliament kicked his ass out for being a bastard. I say she was a monarch, but a terribly unsuccessful one. So, if that's the standard, take E5 off the list as well.

Edward V was proclaimed as king throughout the realm, and was recognised as such for two months until Uncle Richard put in a claim.

Was Jane Grey ever proclaimed Queen throughout the country?

JonasResende · Jul 18, 2016

IIRC HRE Karl V sent to his ambassador in London to enquire as to "who" this Lady Jane was, so internationally as well as locally she wasn't recognized

isabella · Jul 18, 2016

Yes. Edward had more than enough right to decide to ignore his two sisters (who were still called illegitimate by their father) and he was still following the succession planned by his father: the only change was restricting the succession to legitimate children excluding his father's bastard daughters by the line. Jane was legitimate as Mary as Queen, only she lost the crown because the other had more support (but is exactly the same kind of situation in which were Matilda and Stephen)

Avrorrange · Jul 18, 2016

isabella said:
Yes. Edward had more than enough right to decide to ignore his two sisters (who were still called illegitimate by their father) and he was still following the succession planned by his father: the only change was restricting the succession to legitimate children excluding his father's bastard daughters by the line. Jane was legitimate as Mary as Queen, only she lost the crown because the other had more support (but is exactly the same kind of situation in which were Matilda and Stephen)

Not passed by parliament,means he has no right.

Tyler96 · Jul 18, 2016

It doesn't matter because no subsequent Queens have been named Jane, so we don't have to work out the royal numbering.

It all depends on how you define "legitimate" but, in practice, I don't think someone who "reigned" for less than a fortnight, never exercised any real authority, was never widely-recognised internationally or domestic, and was swiftly deposed by a wave of popular sentiment, should be counted among England's monarchs.

Mikestone8 · Jul 18, 2016

It's a bit like Edgar Atheling in 1066. Iirc he was proclaimed in London after Harold's death, but never ruled anywhere else and his "reign" only lasted until the Norman army reached London, whereupon he and his supporters sensibly gave themselves up. He is not usually included in the lists of English monarchs.

Nagisaki · Jul 18, 2016

darthfanta said:
Not passed by parliament,means he has no right.

Until Oliver Cromwell parliament was not much more than a rubber stamp. It ceased being completely a rubber stamp with the Magna Carta, but it wasn't until the beheading of Charles I that Parliament became the true power in England, able to overrule what the monarch wants. And Henry VIII considered his two daughters illegitimate, so technically Lady Jane Grey would have been next in line if we followed that. However, what makes a King or Queen so is being recognised as such by your Kingdom. Otherwise, you are just a pretender.

cerebus · Jul 18, 2016

No if she is not in the list she does not count!
Willie, Willie, Harry, Steve,
Harry, Dick, John, Harry 3,
one, Two, Three Neds, Richard 2,
Henrys four, five, Six. Then Who?
Edward, Edward, dick the bad,
Henrys twain and Ned the Lad,
Mary, Lizzie, scotty James
Charles & Cromwell,
Charles & James,
William & Mary, Anna Gloria
Four Georges & Victoria,
Edward, George, Edward, George
Lizzie two Ship doth forge.

Note Ed V is in but Matilda out also the commonwealth is in!

Derek Jackson · Jul 18, 2016

cerebus said:
No if she is not in the list she does not count!
Willie, Willie, Harry, Steve,
Harry, Dick, John, Harry 3,
one, Two, Three Neds, Richard 2,
Henrys four, five, Six. Then Who?
Edward, Edward, dick the bad,
Henrys twain and Ned the Lad,
Mary, Lizzie, scotty James
Charles & Cromwell,
Charles & James,
William & Mary, Anna Gloria
Four Georges & Victoria,
Edward, George, Edward, George
Lizzie two Ship doth forge.

Note Ed V is in but Matilda out also the commonwealth is in!

Also missed William VI