Excellent and interesting piece of work William. I think you summed up the situation surrounding her really well and echoes my own feelings that her legitimacy as monarch is questionable at best.
This is from my blog where I wrote why I do not consider Lady Jane Gray a legitimate Queen.
My basic foundational premise is that England was and is a Kingdom ruled by laws and it is upon the interpretation of the laws and statutes in effect at the time of Edward VI’s death which forms my opinion on the legitimacy of Janes position as Queen.
When Edward VI died on July 6, 1553 at the age of 15 the Third Act of Succession was still the law of the land, and so was the 1547 Act of Treason. This means that both Mary and Elizabeth were still the legal heirs to their brother Edward.
The motive for Edward VI’s attempt at altering the succession was that the king’s death and the succession of his Catholic half-sister Mary would jeopardise the English Reformation, and Edward’s Council and officers had many reasons to fear it. Edward himself opposed Mary’s succession, not only on religious grounds but also on those of legitimacy and male inheritance, which also applied to his sister Elizabeth. Edward VI composed a draft document, headed “My devise for the succession”, in which he undertook to change the succession, most probably inspired by his father Henry VIII’s precedent. The provisions to alter the succession did directly contravene Henry VIII’s Third Succession Act of 1543.
In early June of 1553 Edward VI personally supervised the drafting of a clean version of his devise (his Will altering the succession) by lawyers, to which he lent his signature “in six several places.” Then, on June 15, he summoned high ranking judges to his sickbed, commanding them on their allegiance “with sharp words and angry countenance” to prepare his devise as Letters Patent and announced that he would have these passed in Parliament.
However, before his Letters Patent could be passed by Parliament and receive the Royal assent, Edward died. Edward’s failure to have his Letters Patent passed by an Act of Parliament meant that The Treason Act, which made it high treason to change the line of succession to the throne, and the Third Act of Succession, we’re still the law of the land. Of course as king, Edward VI could have had both the Third Act of Succession and the Treason Act replaced with new laws, but since he died prior to accomplishing that requirement that means his sister Mary was the legal Queen per the terms of the Third Succession Act. During the Tudor period the monarch had considerable power but they were not an absolute monarch. A Monarch's desire to change the laws had to be passed by parliament in order to become the legal law of the Kingdom.
Actually, interesting - but this did also make me wonder the opposite question: who is considered the shortest reigning English monarch? We all know about Lady Jane Grey, but I'm not sure if she was ever "de jure" a queen. So if Jane Grey is not eligible in that category of shortest reigning, then would it be Edward V? Or another?
Well, the opposite question would be the shortest lived monarch not shortest reigning .
But, to try and answer your question, Edward V would indeed fit the bill on both counts. Just 12 years old when he disappeared, presumed murdered, after a reign of just two months.
Lady Jane Grey is a tricky one. She is often included in the line of English monarchs but is never referred to as 'Queen Jane' but by her birth title, 'Lady Jane'. That signifies ambivalence about her status to me. If she is indeed accepted as a legitimate monarch then her nine days reign would indeed be by far the shortest in British history.
http://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/236
Message Thread
« Back to index