What if Mary 1 of England doesn't replace Lady Jane Grey

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.
 

bguy

Donor
And what about people who are a threat to her rule, which Jane was?

When they actually take actions to threaten you then you are justified. Not before that moment.

And has she been the source of any rebellion? Has anyone rebelled against Mary to install Elizabeth?

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.)

"[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]

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?

[FONT=verdana, arial]
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.
[/FONT]
[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]

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 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.

[SIZE=-1]So how do you propose to deal with the fact that Jane is a source of problems even if imprisoned, again?[/SIZE]

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.

[SIZE=-1]
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?
[/SIZE]

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."

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.

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.

Exactly. Which is why I keep saying that killing Jane just to prevent her from serving as a figurehead for future Protestant uprisings is pointless as long as Elizabeth is alive. Elizabeth could much more easily inspire (and lead) an uprising against an unpopular Mary than Jane ever could.

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.

I agree with your factual analysis but disagree with this conclusion. From a moral standpoint I can never agree that it is justified to intentionally execute someone you believe to be innocent for reasons of state. Any state that needs the blood of innocents to survive doesn't deserve to survive. And from a practical standpoint, I can't see why Mary's throne would have been imperiled if she had spared Jane. Whatever danger there might have been in keeping Jane alive certainly wasn't so great that execution was the only option. Showing mercy to Elizabeth didn't cost Mary her throne, why would showing mercy to Jane have done so?

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.

But Mary herself believed Jane was morally innocent in regards to the Northumberland scheme, so clearly she accepted Jane's age (and/or gender) as mitigating factors.
 
Judicial murder is never pleasant and certainly most of us would abhor it.

There is a problem however applying a modern sense of morality to the past.

Morality had little place in 16th century politics - even tyrants believed themselves devout upstanding folk.

And by the standards of the time you dealt with a potential problem as early as possible - Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI *and his regents* all did just that - to delay action and allow rebellion to develop that threatened the stability of the realm and the happiness of your people was actually regarded as a greater crime.

Tradition showed Mary that a monarch should be just and merciful, but when necessary brutal and decisive as her father was.

I do think the title "bloody" is deserved for her fanatical pursuit of "heretics" aided and abetted by Gardiner (even Cardinal Pole was urging a more cautious approach as he was aware of how damaging it was to her popularity and to their joint religious cause).

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.

Of course Jane wasn't a direct threat - in 1554 - she was just a stumbling block on Mary's course to a rocky and disastrous marriage - but she was a condemned traitor who had been tried and sentenced.

Elizabeth is different and of course was a bigger threat - but the difference is that Mary had been fond of Elizabeth as a child, she was still her sister and Mary (helped by Elizabeth herself) did believe she could persuade her to the "true faith" - even in extremis she never really wanted to believe that Elizabeth would betray her.

Rather ironic Elizabeth's biggest protector was the Spanish.
The Spanish unlike Gardiner and his cronies decided to hang on to the other more serious potential source of trouble - Elizabeth.
Rather a heretic as heir than a devout Catholic Queen Consort of France - Mary Stuart.

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.
 
My understanding of why Mary I has been so resented, particularly for her persecution of Protestants, despite her absolute body counts being relatively modest compared to her father:

  1. Her persecution was a failed attempt to reverse England's transition to being a Protestant nation. Had she succeeded in turning England back into a Catholic nation, many observers in the generations following her reign would have been sympathetic at least to her goals and results if not necessarily her methods. But Mary only reigned briefly, Elizabeth successfully reversed Mary's policies, and England remained Protestant, so Mary was judged by the heirs (both literal and spiritual) of those she had persecuted.
  2. The use of burning at the stake as a punishment for heresy was previously unheard-of in England: before and after Mary, heretics were fined or imprisoned in most cases, and when they were executed they were usually hanged or beheaded. Even people convicted of witchcraft were hanged, not burned. Burning at the stake in England (except under Mary) used only as an alternative to being Hung, Drawn, and Quartered as a punishment for Treason by female commoners. Applying it to heresy, and applying it to nobles for any offense (who usually would be beheaded even for treason), was considered Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
  3. Mary's marriage to Philip of Spain, particularly giving him the title of "King Consort" and issuing all royal degrees jointly in both their names, gave a flavor of foreign oppression to anything unpopular she did. From the perspective of a hypothetical English Protestant, it's bad enough being persecuted by your legitimate English overlord, but to have it happening in the name of some Johnny-come-lately foreigner adds insult to injury. This factor interacted badly with #2, since burning heretics was not-uncommon Spanish practice at the time.
  4. Events and attitudes under Elizabeth, particularly the Anglo-Spanish War and the emergence of the Black Legend, retrospectively cast Mary's reign in a particularly bad light. Mary's widower and co-monarch Philip of Spain was at war with England for half of Elizabeth's reign, and the combination of wartime propaganda and natural patriot fervor greatly exaggerated the brutality of Spanish religious laws and gave Philip a questionably-deserved reputation as a tyrant. Given Mary's association with both Philip and with pro-Catholic religious persecution, the Black Legend tarnished her by association. The effect was compounded in the decades and centuries after Elizabeth by ongoing religious tension and fear of Catholics (particularly in light of the Gunpowder Plot and other attempted political violence by the occasional Catholic dissident).
 

bguy

Donor
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.

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.

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.

Agree with this. That's why I said earlier you would pretty much have to have Mary die during Lady Jane's thirteen day reign for her to have any chance at all of keeping the throne. Any earlier than that and you are correct the throne just passes to Elizabeth. Though even Mary conveniently dying while Jane is Queen probably isn't enough to keep Jane on the throne. Most likely it just leads to Lady Jane being deposed by Elizabeth rather than Mary.
 
Last edited:
When they actually take actions to threaten you then you are justified. Not before that moment.

So, for the fifth(?) time: Like Jane?

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.)
"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 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?
What part of Jane being a threat to the throne do you not get?

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.
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.

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.
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?

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.
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.

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."
How about someone who isn't an innocent, like Jane?

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.
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.
 
Last edited:

bguy

Donor
So, for the fifth(?) time: Like Jane?

And for the sixth (?) time, what actions did Jane take to threaten Mary?
She had no involvement at all in the Wyatt Rebellion. And as for her taking the crown earlier, not even Mary believed she was guilty of that.

From pg. 326 of Mary Lake's, "A Portrait of Lady Jane Grey The Nine Days Queen"

"An innocent girl should not suffer for someone else's crime," was the queen's response to all of Renard's entreaties. "I will not consent that she should die." Mary said that "three days before they went to fetch her from Syon House to the Tower... she knew nothing of it, nor was she ever a party, nor did she ever give her consent to the duke's intrigues and plots. My conscience will not permit me to have her put to death."

If even Mary realized Lady Jane was innocent and that it was wrong to put her to death why is it so hard for you to accept it was wrong?

"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.

Knowing about a plot against the Queen and not reporting it is certainly treasonous. And at least one of the plotters, Edward Courtenay, said that should Mary be deposed, Elizabeth would become Queen (with him as her husband naturally.) Elizabeth not Jane. And for what its worth, Ambassador Renard advised Mary to execute Elizabeth as well as Jane. Clearly he thought she was involved or at least a threat to Mary.

What part of Jane being a threat to the throne do you not get?

The part about how a 16 year old girl, who is languishing in Mary's dungeons, whose (very thin) claim to the throne is tainted by association with the hated Northumberland, who has no troops, no money, no allies, and who doesn't even want to be queen, can possibly be considered a threat?

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.

And again why are exactly are those people going to plot to "restore Jane" rather than to put Elizabeth on the throne? Whose banner do you think people are really more likely to rally to? The daughter of Henry VIII or some slip of a girl who was Queen for like five minutes due solely to the machinations of the hated Northumberland? This is not just a theoretical exercise. As mentioned above the plotters in the Wyatt Rebellion were looking at making Elizabeth the next Queen not Jane. And as such what is accomplished by killing Jane? She isn't doing any plotting herself, so its not as though your extinguishing any plots when you extingush her. And you aren't eliminating the threat of future plots, because Elizabeth is still out there, a much more useful potential figurehead for any such plotters. So those people are still a problem whether you kill Jane or not.

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.

So you're trusting the rationality and moral judgment of people who also felt it was necessary to burn 300 people to death because of religious differences?

And you don't see anything Stalinesque about killing a 16 year old girl, just because she might be a threat? That's exactly the kind of cruelty and paranoia Stalin and his ilk were known for.

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.

Do you really think though that that hypothetical danger justified executing a 16 year old girl? Really? Heck, the Wyatt Rebellion wasn't even aimed at deposing Mary. They just wanted to dissaude her from the Spanish marriage. Deposing her was the backup plan if she wouldn't relent (and in that case they would have installed Elizabeth not Jane.)

How about someone who isn't an innocent, like Jane?

Again Mary herself thought Jane was an innocent, so if you want to defer to the people at that time then you should accept Mary's judgment.

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.

Elizabeth being more problematic though undercuts the whole preventive value of executing Jane. It doesn't do any good to remove Jane, if these hypothetical rebels are just as willing to fight for Elizabeth. Again just look at the Wyatt Rebellion. With the possible exception of her father, none of the rebels were fighting for Jane.

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.
 
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.

Because you refuse to accept even the concept that Jane is anything other than an innocent person and keep repeating her age and gender as if no one of that age and gender could possibly be a threat. Jane is a potential focus for rebellion, as Mary's councilors recognized.

And Charles V, who has no particular reason to want her dead, is refusing to let Philip come to England until Jane is removed - which suggests he suspects there may be future troubles. As he's had to deal with rebellions, I think he might have an idea what to expect from leniency vs. severity.

Calling it Stalinesque to execute a would-be-contender to the throne who has already been the focus and basis of rebellion makes that term meaningless.

And referring to "even Mary was unwilling" makes it look as if Mary was a bloodthirsty person, which is not true. Even counting burning the Protestants, she wasn't doing it out of bloodlust, she was doing it from what to her perspective (which you can call twisted all you like, but that's not the point) was allowing them the chance to repent their sins before hellfire.

I'm not saying that isn't nonsense, but it isn't bloodlust.

I respect your right to disagree. I don't have much respect for your argument that Jane is an innocent martyr and Elizabeth who hasn't done anything, hasn't taken part in anything, hasn't been the source of anything (Alison Weir mentions "no clear proof" on Wyatt intending to install her on the throne, though he did write Elizabeth asking for her support in regards to preventing the marriage) involving seizing the throne, is the dangerous one.
 
It's all oddly parallel to the fate of the Earl of Warwick half a century earlier.

Then, iirc, the Spanish wanted Warwick disposed of to clear the way for the marriage of Catherine of Aragon. Now, they wanted Jane disposed of to clear the way for that of Philip and Mary. Seems to have been just (or rather unjust) the way things were done in the Tudor Age.
 
I don't want to keep going round this either but i will respond to this because it is essentially the key to Jane's death.

This marriage is significantly tied to Mary's psyche - she was in her thirties for most of her adult life she'd been ignored and left on the shelf literally. The only help, support and affection she has received since her mother's death is from her cousin the Emperor and his representatives at the English court - they've been loyal to her, given her gifts, and done all they could to ensure her rights and her life were protected.

The marriage was also about restoring her view of her Royal status - and Philip II was the greatest catch in Europe.

And outside England the realm she had inherited wasn't considered to be that important.

Her mother was Spanish, she herself had been betrothed to Charles V in childhood - marrying Philip II was to her the natural culmination of her "victory".

In political terms it was generally perceived across Europe at the time that a woman on a throne was a disaster (it was the whole point of her father's desperation for a male heir), it was virtually considered to be blashpemous (in both religions) for a women to govern over men, it was not the natural order of things.

For a nation to be inherited by a woman was regarded as equally disastrous as the state would be regarded as her dower passing to her husband.

Spain was the most powerful, Catholic nation in the world - and stood opposed to France - the French were England's oldest rival - marrying a Spaniard would give Mary, in her view, protection against France who through the Dauphin's marriage to Mary of Scotland had aquired a back door to England.

Mary never really appreciated the unpopularity of her marriage - it wasn't in fact that unpopular with some of her councillors (even Elizabeth was urged in the early days to marry to please Philip II and Spain as she and England needed powerful friends) - his Catholicism and reputation was not popular with the commons and tied with growing English nationalism and isolationism (that would come to fruition under Elizabeth) it was of course viewed by Protestants as a disaster..they could tolerate Catholic Mary as their sovereign as long as there was the certain hope that her heir was of their faith.

Even Philip urged a more cautious approach in bringing people back to the church than Mary and Gardiner pursued as he was very aware that it was he who was being blamed by the commons.

IN 1554 she faced a simple choice marriage to the greatest prince in Europe or save a convicted heretic who had usurped her throne and who her cousins ambassador and some of her own councillors were urging her to dispose of despite her own doubts about that woman's guilt.

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.

She'd defeated Protestant rebellion already and took it as clear proof that God was on her side and these tests had been overcome - her marriage and the heir that she would expect to follow would be further evidence of God's favour upon her and her cause....the problems would simply melt away.

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.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Realistically both Mary and Elizabeth have to die for Jane to stay queen. Frankly only some kind of act that kills both of them before Jane becomes queen.

Perhaps someone who wanted all three dead for another to take the thrown.

A Queen Jane that lasts as long as Elizabeth would be very interesting. There are a number of accounts that Jane was quite intelligent. Of course that means little - intelligent people can do very stupid things.

As regards killing Jane: Mary believed she did not dare let her live. If she did then Mary felt her thrown was at risk. I doubt that; but that perception was what Mary used to justify her decision.

As regards Parliament trying Lady Jane; that was a joke. A fig leaf.
 
The Henrician succession is complex

These are the main acts:

1534 Act of Succession - vested the throne in the heirs male of Henry VIII by Anne Boleyn and in default the heirs male of the King by any other wife and in default the Princess Elizabeth.

The 1536 Act of Succession removed Elizabeth and declared Henry's children by Jane Seymour to be the sole heirs to the throne.
It also gave Henry "full and plenary power and authority" to choose who would succeed him if he died without an heir of his body, by naming his successor in his final will or by letter patent.

It also made it high treason to attempt to ammend the act.

The 1543 Act of Succession -the succession to Edward, issue of the King by Queen Catherine Parr, then Mary, then Elizabeth.
Then the heirs of the Lady Frances and Lady Eleanor Brandon (the King's nieces)

Henry VIII in his will simply named his heirs as in the 43 Act.

The 1547 Treason Act passed in the first year of Edward VI's reign
tidied up the treason laws but it included the proviso that interrupting the succession to the throne, as established by the 1543 act of succession was High Treason.

There is debate over whether Edward VI's device for the succession was valid without Parliament enshrining it as an Act of Parliament.
The general view was that it wasn't.

THe powers given to Henry VIII in 1536/7 to name an heir by will or letters patent were explicit to him not to any other monarch.

But the precedent was established.

Edward's intentions were to introduce male succession and exclude women - it was altered when it became clear the King was dying.
Edward aslo intended to seek parliaments approval which suggest that he and his advisers were concerned about the legality of him naming his heir under the right granted to his father.

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.
 
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.
 

bguy

Donor
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.

Psychologically you are probably correct. Though Mary's psychological issues are hardly moral justification for carrying out a judicial murder.

Politically, I don't see the need. The Spanish marriage does nothing to strengthen Mary domestically, just the opposite in fact. (Even if she didn't initially realize how unpopular it was, the Wyatt Rebellion should have been an eye opener.) Her hold on the throne is far more secure if she doesn't marry Philip.

As for foreign affairs, it's not as though England is facing imminent conquest if she doesn't marry Philip. England has afterall gotten by just fine for the last 25 years without a marriage alliance to Spain. Nor does a lack of a marriage mean an end to the alliance with Spain. Mary is still Catherine of Aragon's daughter, she's still the cousin to the Emperor, and she's still Catholic. There's going to be close relations between her and the Habsburgs regardless of whether there is a formal marriage between them or not. And even without those feelings of affinity, hard nosed balance of power realpolitik means the Emperor is not going to let France and Scotland conquer England. This is afterall a man who was perfectly willing to ally with Henry even after Henry treated his aunt horribly and abandonded the Catholic Church. The Emperor was clearly willing to be... pragmatic in his foreign relations. He's certainly not going to throw away an alliance with England, and risk France becoming more powerful at his expense, just because Mary spared a teenage girl.
 
Actually this isn't true - up until the Tudor period a monarch's will was entirely dependent on who succeeded and whether it was accepted.

In fact on the whole they were ignored

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.

Edward IV's will does not survive in full and any codical naming a regent or protector was not legally binding on his realm.
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) they were more likely to follow the nearest example of Henry VI's minority which again hardly followed the explicit instructions of Henry V.

Tradition dictated that where there was no clear succession or a child succeeded then the late King's council tended to take control and make decisions for themselves irrespective of the King's will.

A more recent precedent is the assumption of semi regal power by Edward VI's uncle on Henry VIII's death a clear break with Henry VIII's intentions and requests

The conferring of the right to nominate an heir in default of issue of his own body was first granted in the second succession act (passed after Anne Boleyn's death and prior to the birth of Edward VI) - it was passed specifically to remove Elizabeth now a bastard - which meant the King was legally without an heir at the time - of course Henry and Parliament expected an heir asap from the new Queen Jane.

It was repeated in the final act.

You are right in the anamoly within the 43 act and Henry's will - as bastards they were ineligible to inherit yet they were still named as heirs in the act.

However unlike their brother they were hidebound within certain additional strictures such as they would forfeit their rights if they for example married without the consent of the privy council. (which is why Elizabeth was placed in such peril and closely questioned by the council over her relationship with Thomas Seymour)

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.

The reality is whatever the legality of the device the majority of the population and parliament were uncomfortable with it and still felt his sisters had a stronger claim - which under statute they did despite the issue of their bastardy.

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.



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.

I was going off the wikipedia article for John de la Pole, which cites Paul Kendall's biography of Richard III. On reading it closer, the wiki article also references another book (by Charles Ross) as doubting the claim that John was named by Richard as his heir. I don't have either book handy to check the citations.

True, John never advanced a claim in his own right, but after his death and the death of his younger brother Edmund, another brother (Richard de la Pole) raised an army of 12,000 mercenaries in Brittany for an invasion of England. I thought I'd remembered reading that Edmund de la Pole had also attempted to put forward a claim to the throne after John's death, but on double-checking I can't find a concrete reference for it, and it looks like his execution by Henry VIII was for murder rather than treason.

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)

I didn't know that. I stand corrected on that point.

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.

Agreed, it's pretty clearly an attempt to rationalize a politically-motivated decision, not an honest attempt to correctly interpret and uphold the law, so all the legal arguments in it should be taken with a grain of salt unless confirmed from other, better, sources.

The only reason I brought up its objection to Mary and Elizabeth being single, which I otherwise would have dismissed as absurd, was that in hindsight it seems rather prophetic in Mary's case.

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.

Yes, probably. She seems to have had overwhelming support OTL despite Northumberland's best efforts, so it'd take quite a lot of doing to reduce her support and strengthen Jane's enough for Jane to be able hold the throne.
 
Top