Gemma Hollman of Just History Blog is celebrating 10 years next month.
Huge congratulations to Gemma for her wonderful achievement!
To mark the occasion, Gemma is hosting an online event celebrating history bloggers on Saturday 17th October at 4pm BST.
I am thrilled to be taking part alongside Gemma, Sharon Bennet Connolly, Amy Boucher and Rebecca Larson.
Further details are available at Just History Posts’ 10th Anniversary
Melita Thomas (author of The House of Grey: Friends & Foes of Kings)
Undoubtedly, Lady Jane.
Jane was not queen under common law – even supposing Mary and Elizabeth did not count, and excluding Mary Queen of Scots as not qualifying as born out of the jurisdiction (debatable, but possible) the heir at common law would have been Margaret, Countess of Lennox, followed by her two sons, then Jane’s mother.
She was not queen under statute. That clearly settled the succession on Mary then Elizabeth.
Edward’s device and letters patent had no legal power to overturn statute. Henry VIII could not have left the throne away from Mary and Elizabeth by will, as it had been settled by statute. He only had the right to nominate an heir after Elizabeth, once the 1544 Act was passed.
Kathryn Warner (author of The Granddaughters of Edward III)
I’d say Queen Jane, using the precedent of Edward V in 1483, who was never crowned but is still called ‘Edward V’ and listed among our monarchs, so I’m not sure why Jane isn’t.
Valerie Schutte (editor of Mid-Tudor Queenship and Memory: The Making and Re-making of Lady Jane Grey and Mary I)
Jane Grey should be known as Lady Jane, and if we want to be more accurate, perhaps Lady Jane Dudley.
For those in favor of Jane being Queen of England, it is possible to argue that Mary Tudor was legally a bastard and unfit to become queen. For those in favor of Mary being Queen of England, it is possible to argue that Jane was no more than a pawn in a larger political game and was not legally able to become queen because of the succession statutes previously agreed to in Henry VIII’s reign.
Sylvia Soberton (author of Rival Sisters: Mary & Elizabeth Tudor)
I think she should be known as Queen Jane because she was officially proclaimed queen and accepted the role, even though her reign was very short. She exercised royal authority for a brief period, so the title “Queen Jane” better reflects her place in English history.
Linda Porter – (author of ‘Mary Tudor: The First Queen’)
Jane was certainly proclaimed queen and Cecil’s own notes refer to her first as Jana Regina and then as Jana Non-Regina. For the short period of time that she had conciliar support, she was Queen Jane. However, from a personal perspective, because she was never crowned, I don’t think myself that she should be referred to as Queen Jane.
Claire Ridgway (author of ‘The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown’)
I think she should be called Queen Jane. Her reign may have been shortlived, and Edward’s wishes may not have passed through Parliament, but he did get letters patent, and she was proclaimed queen. I don’t think it’s right to take that title away from her. She may not have sought it, but she accepted it as her destiny and as God’s wishes for her, and then threw herself into the role and was signing letters as queen and demanding allegiance. An incredible young woman.’
