Both of those are excellent, both getting away from the idea of Jane as a 'victim'.  Out of the two Ives would be the 'heavier' read, going into greater detail, and giving more insight into the other players in the succession crisis.  de Lisle goes on to tell the story of her two sisters and their downfalls under Elizabeth.

I've seen the Delaroche painting – it's a hell of a lot bigger than I thought it would be and completely captures the drama of that awful moment (even if some of the details were deliberately changed!) so you come away feeling a little bit stunned.

Wow.  That is a powerful picture.  I'm really excited to learn more about Jane.  Thanks for the link

I haven't read the Leanda de Lisle book, but I can concur with the Ives book. It was a good read. She is not the victim that the Victorians portrayed her to be.

Impish_Impulse said:

Here's a link to it: http://static.squidoo.com/resi…..e_Grey.jpg

It's not as big as some, but some of the larger images I found were dark or cropped. You can see her two ladies-in-waiting in despair – one leans miserably against the wall, while the other turns around and hides her face completely from what is about to happen. And Jane, all in virginal white – it's powerful.

That picture is so sad, I've seen it before. Apparently once she was blindfolded, she couldn't find the scaffold and hunted around for it, crying “Where is it? Where is it?”. How sad. I think she was at least partly a victim of her husband Guildford (who, based on a couple books I have read, is either a mommy's boy controlled by his parents or horrible to Jane), his father, and hers. She was beaten by her parents until she acquiesced to marry Guildford! Horrible.

A good book on her is the one by Alison Weir. There is another one called “Nine Days a Queen” by Ann Rinaldi. It's really good. Oh, and by the way, it is a novel, but still a good read.

Noelle7 said:

It's curious that she has come down the ages still as Lady Jane Grey. I know that few historians consider her to have been a legitimate monrach which to me, just adds to the tragedy of her story. She was proclaimed Queen, however, the Privy Council changed their mind and backed Mary when it became apparent that Mary had more support and far more importantly a bigger army.

They don't mention Queen Maud either.  She was also proclaimed Queen. In 1141 she was Queen for a few months before Stephen took the crown. Why doesn't history acknowledge these women?  Doesn't seem fair to me.

Charles I was King for 24 years.  He was also crowned.  Queen Maud was never crowned Queen of England.  Neither was Jane.  The Privy Council chose Mary. 

Maybe they are not noted because they were never crowned.  But even so…honorable mention would be nice. 

Claire said:

I would also recommend reading the books by Leanda de Lisle and Eric Ives as they both have different opinions on Jane. I enjoyed both and could see where both historians were coming from in their views.

I didn't agree with quite a few of Ives's conclusions. For instance, his complete whitewash of Northumberland didn't convince me. I preferred Leanda de Lisle's version of events.

Nevertheless, Ives's book gives great new insights and I rather liked how he dealt with the various protagonists separately. Having said this, I think the title Lady Jane Grey is rather misleading because the book is actually about “The crisis of 1553”.

Sharon said:Edward V never had a coronation, and he is always listed as a King.  So that blows my theory about Jane and Maud not being mentioned as Queens because they never had a coronation.  Back to the drawing board.

But Jane Grey was still a usurper – I do disagree with Ives – so I have no problem with her not being counted as queen. Had she been successful the matter would have been entirely different of course – as with Henry Tudor .

I know nothing of Edward V but I suppose he was the legitimate heir? No idea though.

Boleynfan said:But, Iguazu, do you blame Lady Jane Grey? I think she truly was completely manipulated by her family, and had no say in anything. For instance, her parents beat her into submission many times. And I agree that she was a usurper, but in some minds might she have been correct, or at least the children of Margaret (Henry's elder sister, older than Mary, Jane's grandmother)? After all, wasn't Mary considered a bastard at that time so therefore not allowed to rule? I'm not saying I agree with putting Jane on the throne–I don't, at all–but I think it's unfair to blame her, especially since she was just a teenager and devout in her faith so that Mary must have been considered very wrong by her. Unlike her thoughts, which were probably very innocent and kind, I'm sure her ambitious family and her husband Guilford Dudley's ambitious family were not concerned about religion and instead wanted Jane as their pawn. I'm obviously very glad Jane didn't keep the throne, or else we might not have had our Elizabeth!

No, of course I don't blame Jane. She was just the tool of others. But technically, she was a usurper even if she hadn't chosen this herself.

Well, Mary was rightful heir according to the 1544 Act of Parliament and Henry VIII's will. I think Edward couldn't legally change that will when still a minor. Besides, he named Jane without at the same time having Parliament revoke the above-mentioned Act of Parliament. So by naming Jane he went against the existing law.

Iguazu, it was definitely not lawful that Jane took the throne. I'm just saying that I don't put any blame on her, and while I'm sure most of her inner circle made her Queen for their own ends, some people probably truly believed Jane would be better than Mary because of religious reasons instead of political ones.