The official website of British Monarchy does list Jane as Queen. More importantly the National Archives at Kew, which is the repository of all official government records, maintains a section for the reign of Queen Jane. So the British government does recognise her as an official Queen, even if her reign was brief. But because it was brief, many overlook her.
She does not feature on the wall of Monarchs at the tower, but the fact that she was not crowned has no bearing. Both Edward 5th and Edward 8th were also not crowned, but both are recognised as official Monarchs of England and I believe that Jane should also be regarded as such.

If the “deuise” was legal, then Jane was queen and Mary a popular usurper, since most of the country was behind her. Mary took the crown by force of arms like her grandfather Henry VII did.

If the ‘deuise” wasn’t legal since Edward had not reached the age of majority, then Edward couldn’t over-ride his father’s will….and Mary was queen with popular support from the country.

Either way, Mary was in a position to become queen and Jane seen as either a relative unknown or a light-weight player under the control of her husband and his family.

It’s a hard call to make….personally, I think Jane wasn’t the queen simply because Edward didn’t have the legal authority to over-turn his father’s will and the previous Acts of Settlement. Had Edward been older, then I would have to accept Jane as being the queen.

Ives certainly makes a compelling case for Jane being queen however it donsn’t totally convince me.

It could be argued, that if the line of succession, was followed as Henry had decreed it in 1544, that Catherine Grey’s son by Edward Seymour should have succeeded to the throne in 1603, and because his aunt Jane had been Queen albeit for just 9 days, he had the right to the throne.
Would things have been different it that had been the case? Possibly although I have been doing a little bit of digging and it appears, that Edward Seymour (Catherine’s son) is a descentdant of our Queen, through her mother Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. So it some ways although Eddy Junior was declared a bastard by Elizabeth 1st and the Grey sisters and their heirs were removed from inheriting the throne, because of their behaviour or whatever, they have had the last laugh as Mary Tudor (Henry’s sister) descendants DID inherit the throne after all..

Boleyn said

It could be argued, that if the line of succession, was followed as Henry had decreed it in 1544, that Catherine Grey’s son by Edward Seymour should have succeeded to the throne in 1603, and because his aunt Jane had been Queen albeit for just 9 days, he had the right to the throne.
Would things have been different it that had been the case? Possibly although I have been doing a little bit of digging and it appears, that Edward Seymour (Catherine’s son) is a descentdant of our Queen, through her mother Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. So it some ways although Eddy Junior was declared a bastard by Elizabeth 1st and the Grey sisters and their heirs were removed from inheriting the throne, because of their behaviour or whatever, they have had the last laugh as Mary Tudor (Henry’s sister) descendants DID inherit the throne after all..

He could have succeeded but was considered illegitimate for most of his life and AFAIK there was no provision in either Hennry’s will, the Act of Succession or Edward’s ‘deuise’ for another illegitmate heir* to take the throne.

The late queen dowager certainly had an intereasting set of blood-lines to pass on to her daughter, with descents from both Catherine Carey and Catherine Grey.

* While both Mary and Elizabeth were considered illegitimante, their succession was enshrined in law by the Act of Succession.

Anyanka said

Boleyn said

It could be argued, that if the line of succession, was followed as Henry had decreed it in 1544, that Catherine Grey’s son by Edward Seymour should have succeeded to the throne in 1603, and because his aunt Jane had been Queen albeit for just 9 days, he had the right to the throne.
Would things have been different it that had been the case? Possibly although I have been doing a little bit of digging and it appears, that Edward Seymour (Catherine’s son) is a descentdant of our Queen, through her mother Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. So it some ways although Eddy Junior was declared a bastard by Elizabeth 1st and the Grey sisters and their heirs were removed from inheriting the throne, because of their behaviour or whatever, they have had the last laugh as Mary Tudor (Henry’s sister) descendants DID inherit the throne after all..

He could have succeeded but was considered illegitimate for most of his life and AFAIK there was no provision in either Hennry’s will, the Act of Succession or Edward’s ‘deuise’ for another illegitmate heir* to take the throne.

The late queen dowager certainly had an intereasting set of blood-lines to pass on to her daughter, with descents from both Catherine Carey and Catherine Grey.

* While both Mary and Elizabeth were considered illegitimante, their succession was enshrined in law by the Act of Succession.

But then Eddy’s illgitimancy could have been taken care of in much the same way as Mary and Lizzy’s had been. It would have only taken an act of Parliament to say Eddy could inherit the throne. The only problem as far as I can see it is that there were no witnesses to say that Catherine Grey and Ed Seymour’s marriage did actually happen. The only witness apart from the cleric who performed the marriage was Jane Seymour, who died shortly afterwards as did the Cleric. I find it strange that although Eddy was declared a bastard he did inherit his father’s title of Lord Beauchamp, and all the lands that went with the title including Berry Pomeroy which is I believe the Seymours family country seat. Eddy also made a good marriage too. In time the titles of the Earl of Hertford and Duke of Somerset were also restored to his sons..
Not bad going for a bastard…

In Mary’s case, even though her parent’s marriage was annulled, both Henry and Katherine had entered into it in good faith believing it to be lawful.

That meant in canon law, Mary was legitimate. She was made illegitimate because she wouldn’t sign the documents saying her parent’s marriage was illegal. Making her illegitimate was Henry’s revenge on both his wife and daughter.

eta n’t…she wouldn’t sign

Bill1978 said

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t one of Edward’s thinking when he was creating his will was that he pretty much didn’t want Catholic Mary to inherit his Protestant throne so kept her illegitimate and because he did that he was pretty much forced to keep Protestant Elizabeth illegitimate as he couldn’t justify legitimising one sister over the other.

That was my understanding too, Bill.

I imagine if Mary was the younger one of the 2 sisters, Edward would have been quite happy to keep the succession of his father and name his protestant sister as his heir. But as we know that’s not what occurred. And so Edward did what he thought was the only possible way to keep the Reformation train chugging along nicely. Scrap his sisters (including the Protestant one), and promote the relative that best matches with his father’s plan. Just a shame this meant in the end that an innocent traitor paid with their life. Maybe that’s why I like to view Jane as an official Queen, cause in her eyes she was, yes she accepted it reluctantly but she was queen for that fortnight. What Mary did to Jane really is no different to all those other Monarchs who got the role through ‘usurption’ and we don’t eliminate them from the history books or refer to Lord Richard or Lord Henry.

On a slight tangent with this question. I know supposedly Guildford asked to be King and when told no had a hissy hit and ran crying to mama, but let’s assume Jane did last as Queen and ruled for many years. Would Guidford eventually be known in history as Prince Guildford or would he remain Lord? Is Prince a title that you can only be born into as oppose to marrying into.

I read it wrong. Sorry. I hate when that happens.
I was looking in Porter’s biography of Mary and I thought it said he did not want either sister on the throne because he thought them to be illegitimate. His decision to leave both of them ‘as is’ was mainly due to the fact that he didn’t want Mary as queen and couldn’t legitimize Elizabeth without legitimizing Mary.

Boleyn said

Anyanka said

In Mary’s case, even though her parent’s marriage was annulled, both Henry and Katherine had entered into it in good faith believing it to be lawful.

That meant in canon law, Mary was legitimate. She was made illegitimate because she wouldn’t sign the documents saying her parent’s marriage was illegal. Making her illegitimate was Henry’s revenge on both his wife and daughter.

eta n’t…she wouldn’t sign

The thing is Mary did sign the document after the Spanish Ambassador explained to her that if she signed it the Pope would pardon her for signing it as it was done under duress. Mary also signed it to save her life an d those of her servents. Up until that point she didn’t believe her father would have proceeded against her and perhaps had her beheaded.

True, but I keep thinking that people are mind-readers…I meant Mary didn’t sign the papers in 1533, when the annulment was going through the English eccilastical system. That was the last straw for Henry’s limited patience. Had she signed then, Henry would have been a lot easier on her future but her sense of morality was of a far more convential setting than that of a mere courtier.

As for the succession in 1603, having thought about it, I feel that even if Lizzy had wanted Eddy to succeed to her throne, she knew that it would cause no end of hassle. I think what I’m trying to say (in my usual blundering stupididy) she put right the wrong her father will dictated. Her father stated that if she died the throne would go to the Grey clan, but Lizzy knew that was wrong and re instated Margaret heirs as inheritors. I also wonder if it was just possible it was Lizzy’s way of saying sorry for executing Mary QOS.

Oh definately…you can’t say some-one is illigetimate for 40-ish years and then give them the highest of honours. Elizabeth saw how that had affected her and parts of her reign. The crown to James as a peace-offering or just that he was the most able of for relatives???

I’d go for James showing he was the most able since you had an obscure woman or some-one under the stigma of illegimatacy. Had Edward actually done anything notable in his life to further his claim as king?

I can find no details of any military career or any major politial doings to prove he was a worthy claimant other than his blood-line.

I feel Jane should be mentioned as Queen as she was declared as such by the Lords, but at the end of the day the people had the last say.

Jane should be honoured in the same way as Edwards V and VIII.