Talk:Lady Jane Grey

Navy

This article always frustrates me with its inclusion of so much speculation and narrative not supported by the sources. There is a statement in this article indicating that Mary "eventually took control over the Royal navy." The chronological context is very muddled in the article (it is July 20 in the first sentence of the paragraph, then some unspecified date prior to that in the second sentence, then July 19 in the fourth sentence), but there is no footnote to indicate precisely when Mary "took control over the Royal navy." "Took control" is extreme wording, and "eventually" is extremely imprecise, especially in a context of building support toward claiming the throne from Jane. I wonder whether the person who wrote that section may have misunderstood or misstated the narrative. Might they be referring to the handful of ships that changed allegiance to Mary sometime between 14 and 19 July? That hardly constitutes taking control over an entire national navy. She did not assume (not "take") effective control over the entire English navy until some time after reaching London. DesertSkies120 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Jane's Father's Title Duke of Suffolk

Pardon me while I go on another lengthy tirade, but once again some anonymous "editor" has seen fit to edit this article under the false assumption that they, the 'editor,' knows what they are doing. I get so very tired of amateurs with limited or no knowledge making damaging edits to this article!

80.189.76.144 edited the text to indicate that Jane's father Henry Grey was 2nd Duke of Suffolk, not first. That anonymous editor is perhaps unaware of how holders of titles of nobility are numbered. The only explanation for that erroneous edit is that the anonymous editor perhaps assumed that Henry Grey somehow inherited the title from his father-in-law.

Henry Grey did not inherit the title Duke of Suffolk. He was elevated to that dignity by the Crown in November 1551. It was a new creation and had no direct relation to Charles Brandon, a previous holder of the title Duke of Suffolk and father of Henry Grey's wife Frances. As such, Henry Grey was 1st Duke of Suffolk in a new and 3rd creation. If 80.189.76.144's logic were valid, Grey would have been 4th Duke of Suffolk, since Charles Brandon's son Henry became 2nd Duke (in the second creation) on the death of his father in 1545, and Henry's brother Charles became 3rd Duke (again in the second creation) on Henry's death in July 1551 before himself dying one hour later. And no, before anyone raises the objection, Jane's father Henry Grey did not become Duke of Suffolk "in right of his wife." The title was bestowed in a new creation, though the Suffolk designation was based in part on the fact that his wife's father had held that designation.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR WIKIPEDIA TO LOCK THIS ARTICLE TO PROTECT IT AGAINST EDITING BY PERSONS WHO SHOULD NOT BE EDITING IT?

Wikipedia's "open source editing" policy, or whatever they call it, remains a massive impediment to Wikipedia's credibility and to its ability to be accepted as a consistently reliable source of factual information. I am utterly terrified of what will happen to this article when the My Lady Jane fans start dropping in to wreak editorial havoc by inserting tidbits they have gleaned from that unfortunate travesty. And if you want to know what gives me the right to speak with authority on the subject of Jane Grey Dudley, just have a look at my UserPage.DesertSkies120 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Portraits and paintings included in this article

I just "undid" a revision by Alanscottwalker in which he had added some text to the caption of the Delaroche image. I removed the revision because a) it is unnecessary and b) the term "chopping block" is incorrect.

Regarding the two portraits said to depict Frances Brandon Grey and Henry Grey, I have to ask "Why?" Neither portrait depicts the individuals named in the captions. Even the data for the portrait of the woman says quite clearly that it is "A Woman," with zero indication that it depicts Frances Grey. Did someone just pick any old random portrait and toss it into this article as a portrait of Frances Grey? Why? No portrait of France Brandon Grey has ever been confirmed. The portrait of the male dates to a much later period, long after Henry Grey was dead. The source appears to be Richard Davey's NOVEL (FICTION!) from 1909. And while it has repeatedly (and erroneously) been published as a portrait of Henry Grey, it is in fact a portrait of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.

The portrait said to depict Guildford Dudley is from the Palace of Westminster and was painted in the 19th century. It is 100% imaginary ... fictitious. It is therefore useless for this article. DesertSkies120 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If chopping block is "incorrect" that's no reason for the revert, is beheading block more to your liking. The reason for the edit is tying the scene depicted by the artist with the text of the article, so I don't agree with your revert.

As for the other images, why did you not just remove them. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The correct term(s) ... the term(s) that academic historians like myself use ... is simply "the block" or "the executioner's block." But I understand that many Wikipedia users are not concerned with accuracy of details and instead prefer inaccurate colloquial terminology.

I do not myself see any need to "tie the scene depicted by the artist to the text of the article" since I think the association is very obvious. But perhaps you are correct ... perhaps some people have significant difficulty making the association unless it is explicitly pointed out to them.

And I never remove entire chunks of content posted by others because that too often leads to editing wars and petty power struggles. I prefer simply to point out the facts as they are currently known to academic historians and to leave the large-chunk editing to persons braver than myself. Wikipedia gives the same editing authority to average people who have read a Philippa Gregory or Alison Weir novel that it gives to recognized academic experts, so what can I do? DesertSkies120 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As for your problems with Wikipedia, you seem to be wasting your time and howling at the wind, (which by the way, DesertSky120, another thing about Wikipedia is you are actually anonymous no matter what you say, so count your overweening need to seek to qualify and requalify yourself as another useless gesture). You seem to be confused between the meanings of colloquial and incorrect, or just elide them into meaninglessness for another waste of rhetoric. And no, to understand the painting, you already have to be well versed in what historians say happened, but perhaps you don't care about audience in writing, which is just poor writing technique. At any rate, go on, ironically you seem to be enjoying yourself, howling at the wind. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to be offensive! Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The tone of Alanscottwalker's response is precisely why I do not engage directly in editing on Wikipedia. The slightest hints of criticism seems to cause certain types of people to become rude and offensive, as Johnbod kindly pointed out. I am quite happy to stand idly by and watch quietly as individuals introduce errors of fact into this article, if that is what it takes to keep from ruffling some peoples' feathers. "Truth" and "facts" are entirely subjective in the twenty-first century, after all.DesertSkies120 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-defined refs

Am guessing that both <ref name=":5"> and <ref name=":2"> should be for Porter (2010). Does anyone know the correct page number(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Porter (2010) isn't defined. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant Porter (2007). So we can just dump them and we don't need any {cn} tags? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The relevant text was copied from 1553 succession crisis without attribution but that page claims that Porter 2010 has over 9000 pages. It doesn't. There could be larger problems. DrKay (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Numerous Errors of Fact

Regrettably, I feel compelled to point out once again that this article has an ever-increasing number of errors of fact. Those errors seem to be creeping in more and more frequently via editors citing non-scholarly sources, particularly Tudor fan-sites. Example: The article states that Frances Grey "faced ruin" and "as a wife, had no possessions in her own right," and that "all of her husband's possession were forfeited to the Crown." That is all just plain wrong, incorrect, and false. First, all wives of men of property were afforded jointures at the time of marriage. Those jointures remained the property of the wife after the death of the husband, often even in the event of an attainder. Second, the property of traitors was confiscated by the Crown ONLY if an act of attainder was passed through Parliament. At the time of Henry Grey's execution in February 1554, no such attainder was passed. An act did finally pass, but it was over a year later. In the interim, Frances had been awarded personal possession of a goodly portion of Henry Grey's most important properties. And when Frances died in November 1559, she left a will, despite the fact that she was married (NA PROB 11/42/688). How can a person "in ruin" with "no property in her own right" leave a will bequeathing property to an heir??? Further, the National Archives records numerous Inquisitions Post Mortem for Frances Grey, late Duchess of Suffolk, the purpose of which was the valuation of lands and properties she held at the time of her death. Inquisitions exist for the counties of Lincoln, Warwick, Somerset, and others (NA WARD 7/14/93, C 142/254/2, WARD 7/8/73, C 142/128/91, C 142/66/6, SP 46/2/fo135). How and why would an Inquisition Post Mortem be held and recorded if the deceased was impoverished and had no possessions in her own right? Lastly, Frances' second husband, Adrian Stokes, left a will at his death in November 1585 in which he explicitly identifies a number of properties inherited by him from Frances (NA PROB 11/68/664). So the claim that Frances Grey "faced ruin" and "had no possessions in her own right" is just plain balderdash! This article needs to be taken down and entirely re-written using reliable primary and secondary sources, not fan-sites, novels, movies, and television shows. At present, it reads more like a novel than a factual biography. DesertSkies120 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the poorly cited additions, as they were largely tangential to Jane. Is there anything else you notice? The rest of the sources seem passable on a skim. Remsense ‥ 论 01:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

OMG, where should I start??? The article continues to refer to Edward VI's "will" even though he never wrote a last will and testament. He was a minor and therefore not legally empowered to write a will. See my discussion on that issue elsewhere on this Talk page.

Jane did not study "Hebrew with John Aylmer." She did study Hebrew, but her tutor for that language was Thomas Harding, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at New College, Oxford. Jane had numerous tutors, including Aylmer, Harding, James Haddon, and others.

The article states, "Jane was not engaged until 25 May 1553." False. She was married on that day. The engagement took place at least three weeks prior, if the required posting of banns was followed.

There was no "Final Act of 1544." It should be referred to as the Third Succession Act of 1543/4 (passed in 1543, signed into law in the spring of 1544).

Mary and Elizabeth were styled "Princess" only by foreign diplomats. Within England, their correct style and title as royal bastards was "The Lady Mary" and "The Lady Elizabeth." English documents of the day do not refer to them as Princesses.

The reason for Henry VIII's exclusion of the Scottish line descended from his elder sister Margaret is not "unknown." They were excluded because they were born outside of England and had no allegiance by birth to England. A law (De natis ultra mare, 25 Edw.3 c.1) dating from the Hundred Years War barred persons born outside of England from inheriting within England. And Henry was unwilling to allow his realm to be inherited by a Scottish monarch after Henry had himself waged war with Scotland for so many years.

"Regent Dudley" ... John Dudley was never regent. Neither was he lord protector. His title was Lord President of the Privy Council.

Edward's Devise for the Succession was not a "draft will." It was a draft for letters patent that were eventually issued on 21 June 1553.

"his advisors warned the monarch that he could not disinherit just one of his two older half-sisters" ... false. There is ZERO documentary evidence that anyone offered any advice whatsoever to Edward regarding his "Devise." Edward disinherited Elizabeth entirely of his own accord, doing so on the grounds that Elizabeth was illegitimate under statute law, and illegitimate persons are barred from inheriting from their blood kin.

The entire paragraph beginning "The essence of Edward's will" (that word again!) is entirely extraneous to this article and tells us exactly nothing about Jane Grey. It also contains a number of errors. I believe the entire paragraph should be deleted.

There is zero evidence to suggest that Guildford "demanded to be made king." I am not going to go into that here, however. It will be in my forthcoming book on the succession crisis of 1553. No sense giving away the farm to Wikipedia.

The paragraph beginning "On the night of 10 July" is utter nonsense pulled from Hester Chapman's biography (largely fictional) of Jane Grey and not supported by any contemporary source. It should be deleted.

Henry Grey placed under house arrest ... not quite true. He was pardoned and required to post a large cash bond to insure his good behavior in future.

Jane did not walk freely in the Queen's Garden. The original warrant of December 1553 allowing her to go outdoors explicitly states that the excursion was to be "on the leads," i.e., the lead roof of the Tower's inner curtain wall.

It is very probable that neither Jane nor Henry Grey nor Guildford Dudley were buried inside the Tower of London. Article on that subject forthcoming in the Oxford journal Notes & Queries.

That is enough nitpicking for now, I think. Good luck with the Editing Wars!DesertSkies120 (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the collation! Remsense ‥ 论 04:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @DesertSkies120@Remsense regarding the numerous errors marked by DesertSkies120, I can say that there is no doubt that Edward VI was manipulated by Dudley to alter the succession in favor of Jane Grey. In "My design for the Succession", Edward's alteration of the text was undoubtedly Dudley's work.

Northumberland was a very astute guy, who knew what he was playing at, but he also knew the risks he could run if Mary I ascended to the throne.

The Duke was behind everything, basically.

I think that even the Privy Council itself had its qualms with him and that is why, when the Duke went out to try to capture Mary in East Anglia, they took advantage of his absence to overthrow him, and along with it also overthrow Jane Grey.

I repeat, Northumberland was behind everything that ended up triggering the succession crisis of 1553. He was a person with too much thirst for power and the growth of his personal ambitions, and who in the end ended up losing when he was quickly tried and executed a month later. of Mary I ascending the throne. 190.18.27.170 (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a reason why I do not engage in Wiki editing wars (I only point out obvious issues in existing articles), and this perfectly illustrates that reason. Certainly you are welcome to your opinion, but if I may ask, what is your documentary evidence? What proof do you have? You make lots of assertions of opinion, but you offer no proof to back up that opinion. And what is your qualification? Are you an academic historian? I have to assume not, given your citation of one outdated source (Chisolm) and one novelist (Weir). I am reminded of the Wiki contributor many years ago who was utterly convinced that Jane Grey was born on 12 October 1537 because she (the contributor) was a "professional astrologer" and had "done Jane's astrological chart" and it had confirmed that day as Jane's date of birth. Wishing and believing a thing to be true is not sufficient. One must present solid documentary evidence backed up by a well constructed and persuasive argument. My opinion is forthcoming in a scholarly book from a legitimate peer-reviewed academic press, together with ample evidence. Feel free to refute my work in a peer-reviewed published piece of your own. I would genuinely love to read it. DesertSkies120 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@DesertSkies120 I am guided mainly by the books of Alison Weir, Eric Ives, Michael Graves, David Loades, Chapman and other historians who have studied the Tudor period, its kings and the most notable figures of that period of English history.

If you say that Weir is a unreliable source, I will stop extracting information from his books and rely mainly on information from more serious authors.

Well, I leave you my greetings and a happy and prosperous new year to all of you and your families. 190.18.27.170 (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Alison Weir is known for writing biographies and novels about people of the Tudor period, but to my current knowledge, her formal education in history is very limited. She trained as a secondary school teacher. She is not well regarded among scholarly and academic historians (those with extensive formal training at the graduate and post-graduate level, people with PhDs in history).

Hester Chapman was primarily a novelist. She had even less formal training in history than Weir. Her book on Jane Grey was plagiarized from Richard Davey's novel (fiction!) Nine Days Queen of 1909.

I will add Alison Plowden, as well, since her two books on Jane Grey are so well known. Again, she had no formal training in history as an academic discipline. She had no university education whatsoever. She was a scriptwriter for the BBC before she started writing biographies. She emulated Chapman in that she plagiarized both Chapman and Davey when she wrote her two books on Jane Grey. This is proven by certain very specific and telling types of errors that occur in all three author's works.

I am not aware that Michael A. R. Graves has written narrowly on the subject of Jane Grey. He was a "legit" historian, but his area of specialization is the history of Parliament in the second half of the Tudor period.

I think part of the issue is that those who have no or only limited formal training in history as an academic discipline usually do not have the skills necessary to determine "good" historical writing from "bad," useful and reliable from less useful and unreliable. There is a very important difference between someone who has read a few books on history, even someone who may have a bachelor's degree in history, and someone who has extensive graduate and post-graduate training in history as a formal academic discipline. It's like the difference between a tent-revival preacher and a Doctor of Divinity or the difference between a local auto mechanic and an automotive engineer or the difference between a line cook at the local diner and a Michelin-starred chef. And the problem is compounded in the context of Jane Grey and the succession crisis of 1553 because only one academic historian (Ives) has ever attempted to address the subject of Jane Grey in a thoroughgoing way. Most, like David Loades, barely skim the surface and focus instead on the men around her. So what we are left with in the way of a "biography" of Jane Grey is largely a collection of myths, legends, and outright fabrications (Davey) that bear only the vaguest of resemblances to Jane Grey as she is described in the primary sources. The primary sources simply do not support what the general public thinks they know about Jane today. That ranges from the time and place of her birth all the way to the place of her burial. I hope that will be set right some day. DesertSkies120 (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)