Lady Jane Grey or Queen Jane?

[paulchen]

With the Anniversary of King Henry VIII's accession and a set of stamps from the Royal Mail celebrating the Tudors, including Lady Jane Grey, a question regarding her has popped into my head.

If HRH Prince William were to father an only child, a daughter who he called Jane, would she become HM Queen Jane I or HM Queen Jane II?

The reason for the question is that, although I believe she was proclaimed Queen, she is always called Lady Jane Grey still, as if she isn't officailly recognised.

[Cinderella]

Good question. I think William's daughter would be Queen Jane I since the official British monarchy website calls Jane Grey "lady," not "Queen."

[sullyo]

Its strange how Edward V and Edward VIII, who were never Crowned are listed as Kings, while Jane who was also uncrowned is just described as lady Jane.

[paulchen]

True Sullyo. And why Edward VI's will didn't count as against Henry VIII's will.

I guess the Dudley family [Lady Jane Grey's in-laws] wasn't popular and Henry VIII was more highly regarded than his son. But just look what they let themselves in for with Queen Mary I. Although, otherwise, we would never have had the glory days of Queen Elizabeth I's reign.

[HRISMH Duke Rico]

Apr 16, 2009 13:31:00 GMT sullyo said:

Its strange how Edward V and Edward VIII, who were never Crowned are listed as Kings, while Jane who was also uncrowned is just described as lady Jane.

Not sure how succession was regulated during the time of Edward V, however the act of settlement provided for the automatic succession of the heir apparent or presumtive on the death of the soverign. Since Edward VIII was the heir apparent he automatically became king. Had he been crowned there was no way that he would have been able to abdicate.

[paulchen]

The Act of Settlement wasn't enacted until the beginning of the 18th Century and the Tudors reigned during the 16th Century. I think I confused the original issue by mentioning Kings Edward V and Edward VIII. However, the comparison was because those Kings were proclaimed but not subsequently crowned, just like Jane, but are fully described as monarchs and have ordinal numbers, but Jane doesn't.

Having read a bit more deeply into the subject, I think there are two main reasons:

a. Jane tried to refuse the Crown when it was presented to her and the plan to put her on the Throne was all due to her scheming father-in-law.

b. Jane would have been the first Queen Regnant in England and, despite the manoeuvrings of King Henry VIII and his many wives and the on-an-off illegitimating of his two adult daughters, were they, as princesses, more preferable than a member of a younger branch of the family?

[donald1941]

Jane Grey is not counted as a queen of England for the simple reason that she was not a queen of England.

Henry's will was made law by an Act of Parliament. Thus after Edward and his legal successors, the throne would pass to Mary and her legal successors, and failing those, to Elizabeth and her legal successors.

Edward, being under the legal age in which he could make a valid testiment, therefore could not change the succession for two reasons: 1. any will he made was invalid, and 2. even a monarch cannot change an Act of Parliament without Parliament changing it. Parliament never made Jane a legal successor.

Therefore her attempt to snatch the throne was not only illegal but also unwise.

Mary had the rightful claim, and the people recognized that. When Edward died, Mary became de jure Queen of England. Jane's 'nine days' reign was nothing more than an attempted 'coup d'etat' that failed.

And one can debate just how 'willing' or 'unwilling' Jane was to become queen. Some of her acts both before the event and during it show she might not have been as reluctant as popular myth would suggest.

And if one looks without prejudice at Mary's reign, she only tried to do what Elizabeth would succeed at, give English subjects religious tolerance. The burnings and such were a reaction to Protestant failure to accept this religious tolerance. Elizabeth would be more successful at it. The burnings of Protestants were no worse than the same burnings of Catholics. What a mess religion made of things.

[dukeofearl]

Mary tried to return England to Rome..not turn it toward toleration..James II gets that credit (still a political dimwit though)..she didnt succeed because there were too many powerful protestants (just as there were a majority catholics when Elizabeth succeded) where mary failed, and elizabeth succeeded, was in the politics of the religious settlement..mary went after their souls, wether they were loyal englishfolk or not.. elizabeth simply taxed the catholics more (they practiced in private) and executed the traitors(real or imaginary) to her throne..this is how the ottoman empire maintained the loyalty of their non-islamic subjects in their heyday..

[SemperEademLady]

If Prince William only has a daughter named Jane, she would take the throne as Queen Jane (she would only become Jane I if there were a second). Lady Jane Grey was not the Queen of England because, while she was proclaimed, she was never crowned and she was never accepted by Parliament.

The reasons given by Donald1941 are correct: Henry VIII had his plans for the succession enshrined in an Act of Parliament; they were therefore incontrovertible except by a subsequent Act.

Also, as to Edward V. He was never crowned but is considered in the numbering scheme for the simple reason that Henry VII said he should be. Edward V and his brother were declared illegitimate by Richard III but as Henry VII married their sister Elizabeth, he had to relegitimate the boys. Henry, and the later Tudors, therefore made sure to recognize that Edward V had been the King of England.

But, regardless of what William names his children, their regnal names don't ahve to have any relation to their baptismal names, so all of this specualting might be for nothing!