Boleynfan said:

Iguazu, it was definitely not lawful that Jane took the throne. I'm just saying that I don't put any blame on her,

---

We agree on this. But I thought the discussion was about why Jane was not officially mentioned as queen when it comes to mentioning the kings and queens of England, so I argued she wasn't officially a queen because she was a usurper.

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.

 There will certainly have been plenty of people who thought so, namely almost the entire London political elite. But as for this “truly believed”, they would naturally judge according to their own political or religious interests.

I always feel bad for Jane because I do not believe she was trying to usurp the throne-she was forced to do so.  I am not sure if she wanted the whole bit of it.

 Mary did deserve the throne even if she wasn't the most popular or best queen out there-she was rightfully in line for the throne as were Elizabeth and Edward both.  I feel as though the people liked Jane but who knows what would have happened if she actually became the rightful queen-I can see why she was executed just to get rid of any possible threat-but I can also see other ways around killing her-but I suppose that is a modern way of thinking-I guess back then it was death or nothing.

Boleynfan said:

 Iguazu:

About the first thing: I agree that Mary should have gotten the throne, definitely, but was Jane truly a usurper? Edward did make her next in his will. About this I'm not positive, you're probably more familiar with the legalities than I am, but I think there was a legal possibility that Edward's will trumped Henry's. Maybe not though.

---

In my opinion, yes. But Ives thinks differently. As I said, I think as a minor Edward could not overturn Henry's will. There remains the question if he could have overturned it had he come of age.

But anyway, Edward could not simply ignore the Act of Parliament, which he did! He would have needed to make parliament revoke this act and replace it with another.

Boleynfan said:I read once that Mary stalled for a long time in killing Jane and was loath to do so but eventually was forced to because otherwise people would think she was going to be a soft Queen. I think this shows Mary was kind in the beginning. Off topic, but I think it's sad that she went from being a sweet, compassionate person to a monster who constantly burned people at the stake.

I don't think Mary was a monster. She wasn't any crueller by nature than her father or even Elizabeth I , whom I admire so very much. Mary had those Protestants burnt  but so had her father. This was an age which still believed in absolute truths and Mary thought she was doing the right thing for her religion and the state. Elizabeth I had hundreds of Catholics executed after 1581 although she was fairly tolerant about religion. But like Mary she saw those recusants as a threat to the state and its order.  But most really weren't. And, as I said on the Elizabeth forum, she wasn't very merciful with those hundreds of ordinary hangers-on marginally involved in the  Northern rebellion. This was an age where the pope would celebrate the St. Bartholomew Day's Massacre and where Calvin would call on people to track down witches and torture the potential witnesses in these cases of witchcraft.

Iguazu said:

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

Edward IV could be considered a usurper. He took the throne from Henry VI.  Edward V was Edward's 12 year old son.  (along with his brother Richard, Edward was murdered in the Tower.)

There were many usurpers to the throne of England.  Jane was one of them thru no fault of her own.  She did agree to be Queen and she did not want her husband to rule equal with her. Shades of Elizabeth?

Boleynfan said:

Thanks Impish, that made me understand better why Jane was a usurper. Sharon, I agree, in the Middle Ages and even early Renaissance there was a lot of usurpers because England was not as structured as it would be, the armies were not as strong, the lords nearly as strong as the King sometimes, etc. I'm just thankful Elizabeth didn't lose the throne for a usurper!

Mary Queen of Scots had a damn good try at it….