Talk:Lady Jane Grey

Jane of England on British Royal Family website

I keep amending the article to reflect the fact that the British Royal Family cite Jane Grey as Queen but it keeps getting changed back. Jane Grey is NOT a disputed Queen if the Royal Family specifically acknowledge her as Queen. Please see article below:

https://www.royal.uk/lady-jane-grey

Leaving the Queen/No Queen question aside, I wonder why you think the royal family's website operator's opinion should be dispositive. Surely it's historians and not royals who can present informed opinions on the subject. - Nunh-huh 22:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The website you've linked to says 'Lady Jane Grey' not 'Jane of England'. The article should do as the citations do, not make up new names. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I strongly dispute this. The website operator would need to ensure a level of accuracy before publishing, surely? Also, it's still a credible and official source. The website also states that she reigned from 10th to the 19th of July. If that is correct, then "Jane of England" would not necessarily be a made up name - it would be her regnal name. Similarly Queen Anne is listed as "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" or simply as "Anne". Rhys Hoffman (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.29.40 (talk)

I will offer an even better authority for answering the question of whether or not Jane should be regarded as a former Queen of England: The British Government. The National Archives at Kew stores and preserves the State Papers for each of the many monarchs that have reigned in England and the UK and for whom records survive, and it catalogues those State Papers according to the regnal name of the given monarch. The National Archives does have a separate cataloguing category for "Queen Jane" (though it is actually only a handful of items, since few documents from the brief reign survived). Further, the National Archives are an official sub-department of the UK Government under the main Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport, which has its own Cabinet-rank Secretary/Minister. I would therefore suggest that if a Cabinet-level department of the official government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland acknowledges Jane as a former Queen of England, then the issue is settled. Unless one thinks that the British Government is wrong about its own former heads of state .... DesertSkies120 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Although Queen Jane's reign was short, she was legally Queen of England, France (though not in practice) and Ireland, Jane was proclaimed Queen and was made so by Edward VI letters patent and was (briefly) recognised by the privy council. I say her title should be "Jane, Queen of England" WiltedXXVI (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, is her proclamation not enough (note that the following is the actual spelling in the proclamation, I can spell): "Jane, by the Grace of God Quene of England, Fraunce and Ireland, defendor of the faith" WiltedXXVI (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Article titles follow WP:COMMONNAME. Amazingly enough, this has been discussed and rejected before - see here for the last time. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Manner of Execution

The article says that Lady Jane was sentenced to be burned but then says that she was beheaded. An explanation of the change would be nice.Bill (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it says she was sentenced to be burned or beheaded. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Well it was February. Firewood may have been scarce. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe Lady Jane was sentenced to death, the manner of which (beheading of burning) was at the Queen's pleasure. Mary chose to have mercy on her cousin and had her mercifully beheaded, rather than being painfully burned alive. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense also because she was basically accused of treason - rivalry to the Queen, rather than heresy. Rakovsky (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Religion: Protestant vs Church of England/Anglican

Someone has edited the information box in the upper left of the article to indicate that Jane Grey's religion was "Church of England/Anglican." This is historically totally inaccurate. The Church of England did not come into existence until after the Elizabethan Religious Settlement of 1559-63, and it did not become known as "Anglicanism" until some decades later. At the time of Jane's death, she might best be described as "Reformist" or "Edwardian Reformist." Similarly, it is historically inaccurate to describe her as "Protestant" since that term likewise did not come into use until several decades after her death. This is an ongoing problem with Wikipedia: People who lack detailed expertise in a given field editing articles because they *think* they know something when in fact their information is not accurate. And since I do not have time to engage in editing wars, I just speak my piece (as a holder of a PhD in Tudor history and recognized expert on Jane Grey) on the Talk page and let you guys fight it out. But it is still very frustrating to see so many errors of fact in this "open editing" format. But we *do* live in an era of "alternative facts," don't we? DesertSkies120 (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

We could just leave that field blank, as we do with James I and VI. The Church of England is strongly of the opinion that it dates back to Augustine etc, and people earlier than Lady Jane are routinely described in RS as Protestant, just as architecture is described as Gothic from centuries before that term came into use. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you both that the recent change is unhelpful. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Protestant could be the best description. Church of England could have meant anything in the context of that time, and Anglican tends to refer to a specific moderate Protestant form of church which only became stabilised during the reign of Elizabeth. PatGallacher (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Jane Grey illustrated before her death

This is in relation to the addition on 2 August 2023 by BillClinternet of a photograph of a portrait with a caption indicating that the image is "an illustration of Lady Jane Grey in her later years, most likely before her death c.1550-c-1553." There are several issues with this addition. First and most importantly, the image does not depict Jane Grey. Instead, it depicts either Katherine Grey Seymour or Elizabeth I and dates to no earlier than 1558. See J. Stephan Edwards, A Queen of a New Invention: Portraits of Lady Jane Grey Dudley, England's Nine Days Queen (2015), 146-176. Like so many of the portraits said to depict Jane Grey, the specific one in the image (the Audley End Portrait) is a much later copy of a pre-existing portrait of another person and that has been relabeled to "become" Jane Grey in the absence of an authentic portrait of her. The image presented, the Audley End Portrait, was created in the 18th century, more than 150 years after Jane's death in 1553. The original from which the Audley End Portrait was copied dates to no earlier than 1602, half a century after Jane died. Second, the caption needs editing if the image is to remain in place. As written, the phrase "most likely before her death c.1550-c.1553," suggests that Jane Grey died sometime between 1550 and 1553! And the caption as a whole, as written with the errors of punctuation, suggests that the image depicts Jane before her death rather than depicting after her death ("most likely before her death"). The more factually and grammatically correct caption might be "An 18th century copy of an early-17th century image falsely said to depict Jane Grey, who died in 1553." But in order to avoid confusing and misleading the public with false information, it would be best simply to delete the image and its caption.DesertSkies120 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Removed - I like "in her later years"! Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Ives 2009

In my opinion, the "Ives 2009" source should be consolidated into one single reference. It unnecessarily takes up a lot of the reference list. Nophunintended0 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's better to keep the page numbers as it improves verifiability. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to remove the page numbers from the citations, I'm suggesting collecting all the different instances in which the "Ives 2009" source is used into one single reference, so it's easier to refer to. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have that all in one place? Why should each individual page be listed separately? Nophunintended0 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's more difficult to refer to the book for verifiability if the page numbers are all mashed up together. It's better to give a specific page for each claim in the article so when we check verifiability we only have to go to that page instead of having to read the entire book. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

May I just suggest that anyone wanting to edit the formatting of the footnotes please first do some background reading in reliable guides on the purpose and formatting of those notes? The format you suggest is entirely contradictory to both the form and the function of end- and footnotes. Adopting the suggestion would significantly damage both the functionality and the credibility of Wikipedia itself. DesertSkies120 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)