I don't know that Jane was either…or maybe she was both…

I think that to be a family associated with the Tudor Court (be that Boleyn, Howard, Seymour, Sheldon, Culpeper, etc.), there had to be a certain level of ambition to simply survive.  I mean, sometimes reading about Henry's court reminds me of high school with people acting like their one another's bffs one minute and then jumping into beds with their husbands the next.  It was cutthroat!

We know that Jane was at Court as early as 1532 and possibly as early as 1527.  She served both KoA and AB.  I think it's naive to think that Jane had been at Court for this long and was “innocent”.  I don't mean to say that she slept around or anything like that, but I think she knew how to play the game that everyone else played to survive and stay within the King's favor (or sometimes under his radar).  She was around the Court to see the fall of KoA and the rise and fall of AB.  

However, we also know that the Seymours weren't very wealthy–certainly compared to some of the other families.  They certainly weren't going to move up on their own, and when they saw Henry casting glances at Jane then I'm sure they did everything in their power to encourage Henry's interest in her.  And Jane was in no position to argue with anyone.  By the time she married Henry she was 27/28 years old, and she had clearly been raised to be a wife and a mother.  By Tudor standards, she was starting to exceed her expiration date for both, and perhaps she saw this as her only opportunity to marry.  I mean, Henry didn't really care if she had a dowry and that was good since Jane didn't really have one.  Additionally, Anne's fall from grace with Henry was very public as was her last miscarriage.  It was very obvious that Anne was losing favor and the Seymours certainly took advantage of the situation. 

So, the reality is that Jane's relationship with Henry was advantageous for everyone but Anne, unfortunately.  I absolutely believe that Jane knew what she was doing–she knew the stakes.  However, I don't think that she had the gumption or know-how to orchestrate the whole downfall of AB all by herself.  I think she was coached by her family to appear demure and quiet so as to be the complete opposite of Anne, but I also believe she was a willing participant in the whole ordeal.  Was she out to usurp Anne's throne?  Absolutely.  Was she a homewrecker?  Sure.  Did she love Henry?  Who knows?  One way or another, Henry was a means to an end for Jane.  I don't think she liked Anne, but I also don't think her intent was to have Anne executed.  

Jane had a little bit of a snarky streak in her which is clearly demonstrated by her wearing the necklace Henry had given her while working as one of Anne's ladies.  What other reason would Jane have in wearing it other than to rub it in Anne's face? 

So, innocent flower?  Absolutely not.  Shrewd conniver?  Maybe some, but not, I think in the way that some historians would have us believe.  

MegC said:

So, the reality is that Jane's relationship with Henry was advantageous for everyone but Anne, unfortunately.  

---

 

I'd say the whole Boleyn family. It still burns me up that Norfolk threw both of his nieces (AB & KH) to the wolves and managed to hang on to his favor and power.

Impish_Impulse said:

MegC said:

So, the reality is that Jane's relationship with Henry was advantageous for everyone but Anne, unfortunately.  

---

 

I'd say the whole Boleyn family. It still burns me up that Norfolk threw both of his nieces (AB & KH) to the wolves and managed to hang on to his favor and power.

I believe there is a special place in Hell for people like Norfolk–somewhere with Cassius, Brutus, and Judas.  That man's heart was black.

I have a somewhat ill-placed question about Jane but couldn't help but ask.Is it true that it is considered that perhaps Jane had a broader education than we know and in fact may have served also in foreign courts.I don't believe it is true because the most known characteristic of Jane is that she lacked in education,compared to KoA(a princess) and Anne(a diplomat's daughter raised in European courts and finery).But the reason I ask is that I read that there is in fact a painting of a lady in waiting in France who looks a lot like Jane?Is is true?Has anyone also heard of that or seen that painting?

Neither did I ever heard it before and I came across it and it just seemed odd to me…All I ever seen on Jane went on to say that her education was about basic knowledge of write and read,that she was good at nedlework and that she was trained only as a future wife of a noble,in fact she was not even trained to become a courtier(no knowledge of languages,musical abilities etc).So it just strike me that as an information and I wanted to see if there ever was any basis or it is just fiction

Anyanka said:

I've seen this 'fact' quoted on several (C&P) history crib web-sites. Along with the marriage at WulfHall. They all seem to use the same reference

 

 

Lancelott, Francis. “Jane Seymour.”

The Queens of England and Their Times. Vol I.

New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1858. 400-403.

 

Thank you very much on the information because I couldn't find anything about it because the info given were unbased spectaculations.It striked really strange to me that such information would be hidden,I mean really why would all the official historical records of her agree on the fact that she was not particularly educated?I came across it and didn't know what to make of it since every account of Jane I have read said that Jane was educated only in matters of household.And although it brings up a portrait,I believe,now that you said it is only a rumor writen in a book,that there is no such thing and perhaps is used as evidence(at least it got me interested to see if there was such a thing) to convice you that what you read is true.Thank you again and I'll try research this book,to see what it really says than information around the web

I am soooo confused with jane Seymour! God i don't know what to think!!!