And what about people who are a threat to her rule, which Jane was?
And has she been the source of any rebellion? Has anyone rebelled against Mary to install Elizabeth?
"[FONT=verdana, arial]Every prince should desire to be accounted merciful, not cruel; but a new prince cannot escape a name for cruelty, for he who quells disorder by a few signal examples will, in the end, be the more merciful.[/FONT]
[/FONT]In a world where imprisoning Jane would remove her from being any sort of threat, because the only threat that she poses is that done by her or specifically with her encouragement, you would be right. Jane didn't personally do anything.
[SIZE=-1]But your insistence on treating Jane as an innocent teenager as if this removes her from being a source of potential rebellion which will remain a problem as long as she lives and there are people who will use her claim to rise against Mary is ignoring the reality that Mary has to deal with - that she is a danger willingly or otherwise. And that danger is not impaired in the least by her being merely imprisoned, more's the pity.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]So how do you propose to deal with the fact that Jane is a source of problems even if imprisoned, again?[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]Strange how this particular killing is unacceptable despite being done for reasons of state, but we haven't even touched the murders of 300 innocent people in the name of religion alone (in regards to Mary losing "moral legitimacy" - quotes as that had nothing to do with her claim to the throne. Not saying its not valid, mind.). Is that because we agree on that, or something else?
mcdnab said:The problem with Jane succeeding in 1553 was a) There was a strong mythology growing around the Great Harry (Henry VIII) and irrespective of religion Mary and Elizabeth's biggest strength was they were his daughters.
Mary's actions with regard Jane Grey mirror in many ways the actions of her sister Elizabeth over Mary Stuart - a reluctance to execute a close-relation (and in Elizabeth's case an annointed Queen who wasn't her subject) - in the end both women put the state and their crowns before any other desire - and to be fair that was what they had to do.
One point - Jane Grey was young but by the standards of the time was and would have been regarded as an adult not a child - given her excellent education she would have appeared to most of us as far older than her years I suspect.
With regard Jane - the imperative for Mary as a woman and a monarch was a marriage and hopefully an heir - she wanted and needed the Spanish marriage - and the Spanish wanted the "heretic usurper" dead - in her view the desire of the state (an heir ASAP) was the same as her personal desire and the price was going to be Jane.
The "peril" to her throne was not rebellion it was her ruling alone, unmarried, no alliance and no child and to Mary that was a real political threat.
Back to the original point of the thread I don't think a surviving Jane Grey as Queen is doable.
One Edward VI's initial decision was based on a desire to exclude his catholic sister he was forced to the Grey line because of Mary's existance - If Mary died before Edward VI (for whatever reason) then the problem vanishes and Elizabeth succeeds along with her Dudley husband (lol).
Jane survives, marries and remains Elizabeth's irritating cousin along with her sisters.
When they actually take actions to threaten you then you are justified. Not before that moment.
"Knew about." does not mean "took part in". "The ability and desire" doesn't mean she's doing anything. Again, Jane has taken the throne, Jane has been the source of rebellions.Well like mcdnab said, there is some evidence Elizabeth at least knew about Wyatt's Rebellion. And certainly if the standard is "people who are a threat to her rule" Elizabeth qualifies. She had a much better claim to the throne than Jane did, and has both the ability and desire to be a schemer (something Jane does not.)
What part of Jane being a threat to the throne do you not get?Well the question of using Machiavelli as a moral code aside, didn't Mary satisfy this mandate perfectly well be executing Wyatt and Sulfolk? The uprising is crushed. It's leaders are dead. Mary has shown very clearly she is not to be trifled with. What more does she gain by also killing a 16 year old girl who was not involved in the uprising?
No, the danger is not reduced. The problem is people outside prison plotting to "restore" Jane. So long as Jane is alive, those people are a problem.The danger is greatly reduced though. It is much harder to plot when you are locked up. And again there is no evidence Jane was ever involved in any plots against Mary after her imprisonment.
Why would it be worth risking the throne for someone who has already been a source of attempted rebellion once, or twice if you count Wyatt's Rebellion?Why would it have been such an intolerable risk to Mary's throne to just keep Jane locked up? She felt comfortable doing that before Wyatt's Rebellion. Jane hasn't done anything since her imprisonment to make her appear more dangerous, and if anything she is even less of a threat after the rebellion since one of her few remainining potential allies, her father, is now dead, and it is unlikely the Protestants are going to rise up again after seeing Wyatt's Rebellion so quickly crushed.
Something that contemporaries were less certain of. I trust their knowledge of events better than those of someone who thinks the idea of executing Jane is tantamount to Stalinesque paranoia.Execute the actual traitors (Wyatt and Suffolk) and keep Jane under house arrest like OTL Mary did with (the far more dangerous) Elizabeth. Jane already stands convicted with a death sentence hanging over her, so if you get even a hint that she is plotting against you then you can still have her executed. But in the meantime there is no reason to execute her for the crimes of others. Jane's father was probably the last person to seriously believe she could be Queen of England, and Mary just (rightfully) executed him, so there's really no one left to fight for a Queen Jane.
How about someone who isn't an innocent, like Jane?I'm less familiar with the later parts of Mary's reign, so I don't really know enough about those murders to properly comment on them. To my mind though even a single judicial murder of an innocent is enough to make a ruler a monster. Subsequent murders may make you a "bigger monster" but you've already crossed the moral event horizon the first time you kill an innocent for "reasons of state."
And the fact that it is necessary or at least defensible to prevent future rebellions and to avoid being overthrown makes it something where discouraging the others (my French isn't good enough to properly adopt the phrase) is important.As for the issue of moral legitimacy vs claim to the throne, remember the initial question here was if Mary's actions were horrendous or not. That is a question of morality not legality. I fully agree that legally Mary had ever right to execute Jane. But just because an action is technically legal doesn't make it moral or just.
So, for the fifth(?) time: Like Jane?
"Knew about." does not mean "took part in". "The ability and desire" doesn't mean she's doing anything. Again, Jane has taken the throne, Jane has been the source of rebellions.
What part of Jane being a threat to the throne do you not get?
No, the danger is not reduced. The problem is people outside prison plotting to "restore" Jane. So long as Jane is alive, those people are a problem.
Something that contemporaries were less certain of. I trust their knowledge of events better than those of someone who thinks the idea of executing Jane is tantamount to Stalinesque paranoia.
I'd really rather not say Jane had to be killed. But I'd rather not say that there was little or no danger given the circumstances.
How about someone who isn't an innocent, like Jane?
And the fact that it is necessary or at least defensible to prevent future rebellions and to avoid being overthrown makes it something where discouraging the others (my French isn't good enough to properly adopt the phrase) is important.
Its not a good thing, but if the choices are a) risk more rebellions from someone who has already been the source of them, willingly or otherwise, or b) end that risk by removing that person...
You need a better reason than her age or relationship to Mary to pursue B, and mentioning Elizabeth being more problematic is ignoring who has been the actual source of actual problems. If and when Elizabeth is the focus of rebellions she can and should be treated accordingly.
And the fact that Jane was innocent of any wrong doing (which even Mary admits) should be more than enough reason not to execute her.
Anyway, we can keep going around and around about this if you want, but I don't think we're ever going to change each other's mind. I'm never going to accept that it is morally justified to execute an innocent person, and you seem to be similarly set in your convictions.
I get that she wanted the Spanish marriage but why exactly did she need it? She's the Queen of England, it's not as though Philip is the only suitable noble in all of Christendom who could marry her. And her marrying Philip was deeply unpopular in England itself (it's basically what provoked the Wyatt Rebellion in the first place). Mary being hot for Philip's picture isn't sufficient reason to enter into a political disastrous marriage, especially when she also has to kill an innocent girl to make that marriage happen.
Jane Grey took the throne in contravention of act of parliament. Yes, she had some reasons. But when you play the game of thrones, you forfeit the right to expect the people you are trying to usurp to treat you with scrupulous mercy and consideration.
Not strictly true.
The act you refer to also gave Henry VIII the right to (re)name his successor without going back to Parliament by the means of Letters Patent.
It was this clause that Edward VI used to try to secure the succession of Lady Jane Grey. The only doubt over this procedure was whether the act also gave Edward VI the same power as Henry VIII to name his successor (legally it probably did), whether the King was capable of making such a decision (Northumberland's influence??) and most importantly of all, what was the popular mood in the country.
It can be argued that from a strictly legalistic viewpoint Lady Jane Grey could have been the rightful queen and Mary was the usrurper. However, Northumberland's failure to arrest Mary meant that she could raise popular support behind her claim under the Third Succession Act. Essentially one of them usurped the Crown and who it was was decided by popular support.
Politically and psychologically Mary did NEED the Spanish marriage, she was urged to it by her bishops and by some on her council - Parliament's distrust and distaste for it was as Mary knew going to apply to any foreign marriage and she had no need to consider the view of her heretic subjects on the matter as to her they didn't count.
There was also pre-existing informal precedent for English Kings leaving wills dealing with issues of succession, without explicit Parliamentary consent. Wills nominating a Lord Protector or a Regency Council were routine and uncontroversial, and wills assigning succession weren't unheard-of.
Richard III left a will nominating his nephew John de la Pole as his successor (despite the son of George, Duke of Clarence being genealogically senior; I think the grounds for this was a combination of attainment due to George being executed for treason against Edward IV and fear that a child-king would be unable to hold the throne). This was largely mooted by the Battle of Bosworth Field and its aftermath, but John de la Pole and his brothers were generally considered the primary York pretenders during the reign of Henry VII.
Edward IV left a will confirming his son as heir and naming his brother Richard as Lord Protector. Edward's sons were soon disinherited on grounds that their parents' marriage was invalid, but Richard's status as Lord Protector in the meantime was largely unchallenged.
Henry V left a written will confirming his infant son as his heir and naming a guardian for him, as well as oral instructions for provisions of regency. (source) After Henry's death, his will and oral instructions (particularly the provisions for guardianship and regency) were heavily debated in Parliament, more on the grounds of ambiguity than on Henry's right to leave them.
-----------------------
The second version of Edward VI's will (the Letters Patent for the Limitation of the Crown) contained an extensive preamble explaining its legal justification. It argued that Mary and Elizabeth were legally bastards (their respected mothers' marriages' to Henry VIII having been annulled), and both the specifically language of Third Succession Act's and England's established law of royal and noble inheritance limited the succession to legitimate heirs, so its explicit listing of Mary and Elizabeth in the line of succession was (according to Edward and his advisors) nonsensical, so the succession should skip them and go to the next listed heirs, the heirs of Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk. There was also a practical argument claiming that it was extremely dangerous to leave the throne to an unmarried woman because she could then marry some unsuitable foreigner who would run roughshod over England's laws and customs:
AND FORASMUCH ALSO as it is to be thought, or at the leaste much to be doubted, that yf the said Lady Mary or ladie Elizabeth should herafter have and enjoy the said imperial crowne of this realme, and should then happen to marry with any stranger borne out of this realme, that then the same stranger, havinge the governemente and the imperiall crowne in his hands, would rather adhere and practice to have the lawes and customes of his or their owne native countrey or countreyes to be practised or put in nre within this our realme, then the lawes, statutes, and customes here of longe time used, wherupon the title of inheritance of all and singular our loving subjects doe depend, which would then tende to the utter subversion of the comon-welth of this our realme, which God defend.Then after Mary overturned the will and took the throne, she went and proved Edward right by marrying Philip of Spain, confirming him as co-ruler, and supporting him in importing Spanish laws and practices (particularly the burning of Protestants) to England.
-----------
Also, by my reading, the Third Act of Succession is ambiguous as to whether its provisions for disposing of the crown by will applies specifically to Henry VIII or to him and all future Kings. Throughout, it refers only to "the King" or "his Majesty" or "his Highness", not to Henry VIII by name. There are parts of the act (particularly references to named individuals by their relation to the King, e.g. "the Lady Mary the King's Highness's Daughter") that are nonsensical unless read as referring specifically to Henry VIII, but the provisions for the King making a will make sense if read as referring to whomever holds the office of King, not just to Henry VIII specifically, and the justifications for granting that power in the will still apply to Edward VI as much as they do to Henry VIII: even more so, since Edward was making provisions for his imminent death without any heirs of his body, while Henry was (at the time the Act was passed) a middle-aged man in reasonably good health with a son, two daughters, and the possibility of more children in the future.
The "just Henry VIII" reading, I think, is more plausible since it doesn't rely on words with multiple possible meanings switching meanings mid-paragraph, but there's at least a bit of weasel-room.
Richard III did not leave a will naming an heir and John de la Pole was not his nearest legitimate heir (even if you discount the issue of his two older brothers - incidentally an attainder does not bar someone the throne and George of Clarence's specifically did not deprive his issue of their rights to the throne just the title of Duke ).
At no point following Richard's death and Stoke when de la Pole rebelled in support of an alternative pretender did John ever claim the throne.
In fact the council in London didn't think they needed a protector and planned to proceed with the coronation of Edward V without delay (given his age that made sense)
There is a great deal of double dealing in Edward's device - its main motivation is to ensure the protestant succession but quite correctly he couldn't remove one sister without removing the other since both were under English law illegitimate. [...] The preamble about their single status is cant given the flurry of marriages and betrothals that northumberland pushed onto the grey's at the same time - Jane to Guildford, and betrothals for her sister Catherine and her cousin Margaret Clifford.
Had he lived to see the device on the statute books i think Mary would stilll have become Queen eventually - the popular support was there for her and she was well organised and clever enough to avoid traps set by Northumberland.