Queen for (More Than) 9 Days

What would the results of a surviving Lady Jane Grey-Guildford Dudley be? Mary I only put them to death as part of a condition of Philip II coming to England to marry her. (Ironically, her mother coming to England had been preconditioned on the execution of the earl of Warwick, another claimant to the throne, as well.) If Mary and Elizabeth were to still die childless, Jane would be the next in line to the throne (according to Henry's will) (those females with Tudor blood seemed to be a relatively long-lived bunch if they survived infancy (dying at fifty/sixty, if they didn't die in childbed before that), however she won't live long and will presumably be succeeded by one of her kids in due course.

How might this affect the world/English stage?
 
Sorry, but I don't foresee Jane succeeding Elizabeth had she somehow survived Mary and Elizabeth merely because of Henry VIII's Will. First of all, Jane's own [brief]succession depended on the dying Edward VI setting aside Henry's Will so that in itself means that Jane wasn't the rightful monarch either via sheer primogeniture or by Henry's alterations. Secondly, Jane was survived by younger sisters who did have progeny [some who survive to this day] yet Elizabeth having had rows with them ignored their claims and instead opted to revert back to strict primogeniture [and, likely her own Devil's bargain with James VI] by strongly implying her 'cousin in Scotland' succeed her- and then, evidently only on her deathbed [although even that seems a bit speculative].
Also, I think had Phillip not insisted on Jane being executed as a marriage term, I think it's quite likely that Mary may have had quietly had an 'accident' happen to Jane after a time [which is what Elizabeth herself later strongly hinted at wanting to happen to Mary Queen of Scots] instead of the very public execution.
 
Sorry, but I don't foresee Jane succeeding Elizabeth had she somehow survived Mary and Elizabeth merely because of Henry VIII's Will. First of all, Jane's own [brief]succession depended on the dying Edward VI setting aside Henry's Will so that in itself means that Jane wasn't the rightful monarch either via sheer primogeniture or by Henry's alterations. Secondly, Jane was survived by younger sisters who did have progeny [some who survive to this day] yet Elizabeth having had rows with them ignored their claims and instead opted to revert back to strict primogeniture [and, likely her own Devil's bargain with James VI] by strongly implying her 'cousin in Scotland' succeed her- and then, evidently only on her deathbed [although even that seems a bit speculative].
Also, I think had Phillip not insisted on Jane being executed as a marriage term, I think it's quite likely that Mary may have had quietly had an 'accident' happen to Jane after a time [which is what Elizabeth herself later strongly hinted at wanting to happen to Mary Queen of Scots] instead of the very public execution.

Catherine Grey, Jane's younger sister, was married twice (with a whiff of scandal tainting the first marriage, and more than a stench thereof the second). Her first marriage was annulled, her second marriage (when Elizabeth found out about it) no one was quite sure when/where it had happened. And it didn't help that it had been to a Seymour.
And although Elizabeth declared the marriage (if it indeed had ever happened) null and void, and the Seymours ineligible to succeed, James VI seems to have regarded their claim with more seriousness, given that he had the Earl of Hertford and his cousin, Lady Arabella, locked up when he heard of their marriage - since it gave the rightful heir to England a claim to the Scots throne too.
 
She was never Queen at all. She was never crowned and without going through a coronation she was no more a monarch of England than Louis VIII of France was. And when Mary was crowned Queen, the nine days Jane claimed to be Queen were recognized as unofficial and merely the proclamations of a usurper. I'm sorry, but its an issue that annoys me greatly.
 
Catherine Grey, Jane's younger sister, was married twice (with a whiff of scandal tainting the first marriage, and more than a stench thereof the second). Her first marriage was annulled, her second marriage (when Elizabeth found out about it) no one was quite sure when/where it had happened. And it didn't help that it had been to a Seymour.
And although Elizabeth declared the marriage (if it indeed had ever happened) null and void, and the Seymours ineligible to succeed, James VI seems to have regarded their claim with more seriousness, given that he had the Earl of Hertford and his cousin, Lady Arabella, locked up when he heard of their marriage - since it gave the rightful heir to England a claim to the Scots throne too.

The ONLY reason James felt threatened by that claim was because they were English. James was a foreigner, but by primogeniture he was the heir, not Lady Arabella or the Greys. And Jane Grey was NOT a reigning Monarch. She was a usurper, willingly or not, and nothing more. I mean in no official documents or line of Monarchs is she mentioned.
 
She was never Queen at all. She was never crowned and without going through a coronation she was no more a monarch of England than Louis VIII of France was. And when Mary was crowned Queen, the nine days Jane claimed to be Queen were recognized as unofficial and merely the proclamations of a usurper. I'm sorry, but its an issue that annoys me greatly.

This. If Jane is considered a Queen, then we must consider Monmouth as James II .
 
Do you think if she hadn't attempted to usurp the thrown that Elizabeth would have made one of the Greys her heir in accordance with Henry's will?
 
Did she ever "appoint" James though?

As I understand it the legal line of succession remained that established by Henry VIII: given the illegitimacy of Catherine Grey's children, that left Margaret Clifford as the heiress, but the primogeniture claim of Catherine Grey and the vague legitimacy of her children (this is at the end of the medieval period, but th idea of promising marriage [sponsalia de futuro] and then making it the real deal by sex was still somewhat viable) made them the preferable heirs. Not to mention there had been some ruling or decision that succession to the crown "perfected" imperfections of the blood, like attainders and such.

It's a messy business but by the terms of Henry VIII's Act of Succession Seymour was the primogeniture heir (as the line of Queen Margaret was disinherited in its entirety); Arabella was the next heir along both of Margaret's line and the Hamilton(?) claim to Scotland, so her marriage to him was a very viable threat/significant dynastic maneuver.
 
Did she ever "appoint" James though?

As I understand it the legal line of succession remained that established by Henry VIII: given the illegitimacy of Catherine Grey's children, that left Margaret Clifford as the heiress, but the primogeniture claim of Catherine Grey and the vague legitimacy of her children (this is at the end of the medieval period, but th idea of promising marriage [sponsalia de futuro] and then making it the real deal by sex was still somewhat viable) made them the preferable heirs. Not to mention there had been some ruling or decision that succession to the crown "perfected" imperfections of the blood, like attainders and such.

It's a messy business but by the terms of Henry VIII's Act of Succession Seymour was the primogeniture heir (as the line of Queen Margaret was disinherited in its entirety); Arabella was the next heir along both of Margaret's line and the Hamilton(?) claim to Scotland, so her marriage to him was a very viable threat/significant dynastic maneuver.

But at the same time Henry's Second act of succession gave the Sovereign the power the name an heir from within the line of succession, if the Monarch has no surviving children. Technically that part was never repealed, so legally James would be the heir. And according to your cited acts, those in the line of succession needed the Monarch's permission to marry, so legally Catherine Grey's marriage and children were illegitimate.
 
I am sure that there are other time lines, but what if Jane had been able to resist Mary and her followers. If she had stayed Queen how well might she rule? If she died childless, would one of her sisters inherit or would there be more of a push to crown Elizabeth?
 
Jane was an extremely staunch Protestant; among the few things she did during her nine-day OTL reign was make plans for more firmly establishing the Reformation in England. If she manages to stay on the throne, and if she manages to gain personal power despite her uncle-by-marriage Northumberland (both of which are long shots...), I'm almost certain that would be the single hallmark of her reign.

To emphasize how strong her faith was: In OTL, after issuing the execution order, Queen Mary offered to let Jane live if she professed Roman Catholicism. Jane refused.
 
Top