Talk:Lady Jane Grey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lady Jane Grey article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] "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)

[edit] Talk page archived

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

[edit] Date of Birth

Just for fun, I would like to point out that Lady Jane Grey's date of birth is no longer thought to be in October of 1537, or even in the year 1537. An article was published in the Oxford University Press journal Notes and Queries (Volume 54, number 3, Sept 2007) in which evidence was presented indicating that she must have been born prior to June of 1537. A second article is forthcoming from the same publisher in which it is established that Jane was actually born in late 1536, fully one year earlier than commonly assumed. Let the Wiki debate begin! PhD Historian (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this could be treated the same as the Anne Boleyn date debate. Therefore, if the information is fully sourceable (and/or enough info/sourceable argument can be written about the two dates of birth), then another section or subsection could be added to the article about the DofB debate. PeterSymonds | talk 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There are, I suppose, similarities to the Ives/Warnicke/et al debate over the date of birth of Anne Boleyn. But there are also some critical differences. In the Boleyn case, as I recall, even Anne's contemporaries were uncertain of her age and date of her birth. In the case of Jane Grey, her contemporaries are in agreement that she was born long before the October 1537 date that tradition assigns to her. In fact, the October date of birth was not even assigned until the nineteenth century, fully 400 years after the event. And yes, the information is fully sourceable. Both Notes and Queries articles are fully footnoted with citations to sources in the 1550s created by individuals personally associated with Jane, namely her tutors. One point is left out of the articles, however: Jane's father, Henry Grey, was in Norfolk with his father-in-law, Charles Brandon, on a military expedition to put down the Pilgrimage of Grace throughout the period between October 1536 and February 1537. If Jane had indeed been born in early October, she must necessarily have been conceived in the middle two weeks of January 1537, seemingly impossible if Henry were away from Frances until February while putting down a rebellion. PhD Historian (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see more clearly now. I was just using the Anne Boleyn debate as an example of the bad record-keeping regarding birthdates during that period of time. I think it's definately worth mentioning the date possibilities in the article–currently it states that Jane was born on an unknown date in 1537, which can be made more interesting with arguments about her actual date of birth, whether 1536 of 1537. Your insight into the movements of Henry Grey and Charles Brandon at this crucial period is also very interesting, and can be backed up by a source. The conflicting information probably won't provide us with a definate date (yet, anyway), but it will add flavour to the article. PeterSymonds | talk 20:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
As you note, church-based record-keeping regarding births, baptisms, marriages and deaths in the first half of the sixteenth century bore no resemblance to the thoroughness of modern governmental bureaus of vital statistics. In fact, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, deplored the general lack of record-keeping and in 1538 issued an episcopal directive instructing all parish officials to begin keeping such records. Many of those records were later destroyed during the religiously-based conflicts of the Civil Wars of the mid seventeenth century, complicating our lack of documentary birth data prior to 1660. As a result, it is very unlikely that Jane Grey's precise date of birth will ever be known. PhD Historian (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to make this article factually correct and consistent with the latest research findings on the topic, I have taken the liberty of amending references to LJG's date of birth to show that she was certainly born much earlier than the date traditionally believed. I again refer readers to the recent article in Oxford University's Notes and Queries, cited above. That article can be read in full at On the Date of Birth of Lady Jane Grey Dudley. There is an additional article pending with the same journal, due in June 2008, that firmly establishes Jane's date of birth as after October 1536 but before February 1537. The myth that she was born in October 1537 is entirely an invention of nineteenth-century panegyrists, though I do understand that many in the general public prefer to cling to myths rather than reality. PhD Historian (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am open to persuasion, but at present it seems in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy to cover all possibilities about her date of birth. It would help if we did not have a broken link to the article mentioned. To come down firmly on one side of this divide you would have to show that there is a scholarly consensus in favour of the earlier date, not just one article. PatGallacher (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. I agree that we should cover all possibilities. But scholarly consensus does not always reign in cases like this. New original scholarship may outdate existing consensus at a stroke. Dates of birth and death are often tricky to nail, and since most scholars are not interested in that sort of detail (check their notes and you see that they often cite birth dates to earlier scholars without question), errors can sometimes be copied ad infinitum, giving the impression of consensus. While this is understandable, often new books deplorably give wrong dates even when the scholarship has moved on. On the other hand, as with John Knox, new, apparently definitive research, may later be modified under scrutiny. On the birth, this article seems to have the balance right at the moment, though it is a dreadful article in many other ways. qp10qp (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Family tree

i'd like to suggest that the family tree be changed from left to right (i.e. Lady Jane Grey on the right). This is a more natural way of reading it (in english anyway). Stanlavisbad (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, genealogical stemma have for centuries been written, displayed, and read in a vertical direction from top to bottom. This pattern has been used in most European languages, not just English. PhD Historian (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, i'm aware of this. either vertical or L-R would be more preferable i think. possibly selected great-grandparents (i.e. only the ones relevant to the article) would also be a good modification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanlavisbad (talk • contribs) 10:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. See my note above under "Unnecessary and erroneous trivia." PhD Historian (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.
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.
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.)
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 Atheling, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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 - KrakatoaKatie 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)

[edit] 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)

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)