What if Lady Jane Grey, the famous Nine Days (or rather, 13 days) Queen, had been born Lord John Grey?
Would Mary have been able to rally support against a male claimant as she did against Jane? If so, how much, and would she have won?
And, most importantly, how would England’s religious future have changed?
That’s what I explore in video below.
Note: If you prefer reading, you can scroll down to read the transcript.
Transcript:
Thank you to Amanda Glover for sending me this “what if” question, it’s a great one, although when I think of Lord John Grey, I think of the Lord John from the Outlander series!
In July 1553, the dying King Edward VI wrote his “devise for the succession” with the input of the Lord President of his council, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. He made several changes to it as he got closer and closer to death, but in all versions, he went against his father’s wishes for the succession – Henry VIII had put his daughters Mary, then Elizabeth, in the line of succession after Edward – and, instead, skipped over his sisters and went down the Grey line. In the final version of the devise, Edward named his first cousin once removed, Lady Jane Grey, as his successor. Jane was the daughter of Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk and Lady Frances Brandon, who, in turn, was the daughter of Mary Tudor, Queen of France, Henry VIII’s sister.
Why would Edward skip over his half-sister Mary? Well, firstly, because he deemed her and his other half-sister Elizabeth as “clearly disabled” from making any claim to the throne due to their illegitimate status and the fact that they were “but of the halfe bloud”. Lady Jane Grey was legitimate and “whole blood” in Edward’s eyes, and therefore his legitimate successor. However, the primary concern of Edward and the Duke of Northumberland was to keep England on a Protestant path, and they knew full well that the Catholic Mary would overturn all of the religious reform of Edward’s reign and return England to the Catholic fold. That just couldn’t happen. And Jane was a devout Protestant. She was perfect – she had a valid claim to the throne as the great-grand-daughter of Henry VII, she was legitimate, and she was Protestant. She’d continue the work begun by Edward and his government.
And after Edward’s death on 6th July 1553, Jane did become Queen of England. She was proclaimed queen on 10th July 1553. In the meantime, on hearing news that her half-brother was dying, Mary had fled London to travel to her estates in East Anglia. On 8th July, on hearing of Edward’s death, she proclaimed herself queen in front of her household at Kenninghall and the following day, wrote to the Privy Council stating her claim and demanding their allegiance. She also started writing to peers of the realm calling on their support. To cut a long story short, Mary was hugely successful in rallying support for her claim and while the Duke of Northumberland was away from court – having left London to try and apprehend Mary, Queen Jane’s royal council betrayed their queen and proclaimed for Mary. Mary was victorious. Mary’s rebellion worked because she gathered support quickly. Key figures like the Duke of Northumberland underestimated her, thinking that a woman wouldn’t have the resources or the will to fight back. That mistake allowed Mary to gain momentum.
On 19th July 1553, Mary was officially proclaimed queen. Jane was imprisoned in the Tower of London, tried for high treason on 13th November 1553 with her husband and supporters, and finally executed on 12th February 1554, following her father’s involvement in Wyatt’s Rebellion, a rebellion that sought to depose Mary and replace her with Elizabeth.
That’s what really happened. That’s what happened to Lady Jane Grey. But what if Jane had been born male – a Lord John Grey?
In 16th century England, gender played a massive role, not just in politics, but in society in general. Tudor England was very much a patriarchal society. Women were seen as inferior to men, after all, Eve had been created as an obedient “meet help” for Adam AND she was “the supreme temptress of mankind”. They were seen as subservient, weak, and morally frail, and so definitely incapable of ruling a country. So, a sixteen-year-old male heir, just a year younger than Henry VIII when he became king – a claimant with Tudor blood – would have been far more acceptable to not only the royal council and nobility, but to the people of England, than a female one. Edward’s council would likely have rallied behind Lord John Grey without hesitation. The idea of a female monarch was unsettling to many at the time, but a male Protestant king? That would have been a much easier sell.
Would Mary have still attempted to claim the throne against a male claimant or would she have seen it as a lost cause. Well, I think Mary would have viewed herself as the rightful claimant. Her father had placed her in the succession after Edward and she would have felt that her claim was stronger than their first cousin once removed, even though he was male. And, I think she would have felt it her destiny, her duty even, to save the kingdom from heresy, to save the people from hell, by restoring Catholicism throughout the land. Laying claim to the throne wasn’t just about her moral right, it was about religion.
The question then becomes: Would Mary have succeeded in her bid to claim the throne? In reality, Mary’s cause gained support partly because of sympathy for a woman wronged and the idea of legitimacy in the line of succession. But would she have received the same level of backing against a Lord John Grey?
I think it’s unlikely. Lord John Grey’s gender would have worked in his favour. Many nobles who supported Mary did so reluctantly, viewing a female ruler as a last resort. With a Protestant male heir in place, Mary might have found herself isolated, with fewer supporters willing to back her claim. The power dynamics would have shifted significantly.
And however much the common people loved Mary, as the daughter of Bluff King Hal, she was female, and women just didn’t rule countries, well, not in England anyway. I think Mary would have faced a showdown with a king with strong military backing and a united royal council who supported him. I believe that Mary would have ended up having to back down. If she’d managed to raise any support at all, I’m sure her troops would have been vastly outnumbered by Crown forces. I don’t think Mary would have wanted men to die for something that was a lost cause.
So what would have happened to Mary if she had tried and failed to take the throne?
If she had marched on London, she would have found it well-defended and she would have been captured and arrested. But I think she would probably have been apprehended before that point. The Duke of Northumberland and his troops, who’d been sent to bring her back to London would have been successful.
Then what?
Hmmm… In my view, there are two likely scenarios:
1) Execution as a traitor and 2) Imprisonment for life. Although 1) is much more likely.
King John II and his government would have viewed Mary as a rebel, a traitor, a potential figurehead for Catholic rebellions. She was a threat to the stability of the country, and so it was safer for the king to have her executed, as Mary did, in reality, with Lady Jane Grey. If John had left her alive and in prison, then she could well have been like Mary, Queen of Scots, plotting with the empire and Catholics against the king. John and members of his council may have wanted to let her live, to be merciful – after all, she was a Tudor princess – but was it safe to do? And if she was sent into exile, it would be easy for her to rally support from the emperor, the pope and Catholic countries.
There’s the possibility that Mary could have been seen as a Catholic martyr. The execution of Mary, Queen of Scots by Elizabeth I in 1587 was a factor in Spain’s attempted invasion of England with the Spanish Armada in 1588, so would there have been trouble for King John II? It’s a possibility. However much John’s government tried to control the narrative, portraying Mary as a rebel and a traitor, the pope and powerful European rulers would have seen Mary as the rightful monarch. They may well have sought to remove John from power.
What would have happened to England if Lord John Grey had become king in place of the Catholic Mary I, a queen who has gone down in history as Bloody Mary because of the religious persecutions of her reign?
Well, Lady Jane Grey had been a staunch Protestant, and, I think, had the beginnings of a radical Protestant zealot. She was very much influenced by the work of radical reformers like John Hooper and Heinrich Bullinger. Lord John Grey, as a male version of her, would obviously have been just as hard line in enforcing strict religious reforms. He would have continued Edward VI’s work, and, I think, would have gone a lot further. He wouldn’t have been a moderate Protestant, like Elizabeth I, for example, he would have likely pushed England towards a more Calvinist, Puritan state.
What would that have looked like?
It’s hard to know, but England surely would have had stricter moral laws and harsher penalties for Catholics. Edward VI hadn’t burnt Catholics, but I think a male version of Lady Jane Grey may well have considered doing so. While imprisoned in the Tower of London, Lady Jane Grey wrote letters in which she referred to the Catholic faith as “the wh*re of Babylon” and the abominable idol, she damned all those who attended Catholic mass, and called her former tutor, who’d turned away from Protestantism and embraced Catholicism “the deformed imp of the devil”. What’s more, she wrote of how Christ came not to bring peace, but a sword.” I can quite imagine Jane/John burning Catholics, those imps of the devil.
And King John would have eliminated even more traditional church rituals and encouraged further destruction of religious images. Think of Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan Church or John Calvin’s Geneva, that’s how I see the Church of King John II. Catholic practices would be banned, public celebrations like Christmas and feast days might come to an end, laws would regulate dress and behaviour, gambling and dancing could be punished, and there could well be censorship of music, art and theatre. Those are all possibilities with a zealous Protestant in control.
How would the people of England have reacted to that?
I think radical policies would have alienated not only conservative Catholics, but also moderate Protestants. I can see both Catholics and Protestants going into exile abroad, and religious rebellions similar to the Pilgrimage of Grace taking place.
And what about Elizabeth, what would have happened to her?
I can’t see Elizabeth mounting a challenge to Lord John Grey in 1553, but I think as his reign went on and people became unhappy with the zealous Puritan king, that they might have looked to Elizabeth as a better option. She may well have become a figurehead for both Protestant and Catholic rebellions. So how would King John have tried to neutralise this threat? He could have married her off to a powerful, foreign, Protestant ally or a nobleman he trusted, or he could have imprisoned her, or even executed her to eliminate the threat entirely. Execution would definitely be a possibility if there were uprisings in her name.
Even if she were left alive, John could have a long reign and have a son to follow him, meaning that there’d be no Elizabethan Golden Age, no Elizabethan religious settlement with the founding of the Anglican Church as we know it today, and England would have grown closer to Protestant states and countries.
I guess Elizabeth could still have become queen if there had been uprisings or civil war. There is the possibility that John could have been deposed due to his unpopularity and the more moderate Elizabeth put on the throne.
And then there’s Mary, Queen of Scots! Catholics in England could well have turned to her. She had a strong claim to the throne being the grand-daughter of Margaret Tudor, Henry VII’s eldest daughter, and she was a Catholic. Foreign powers like Spain and France could have given her military support to lay claim to England.
Phew! There are so many factors to take into account.
To conclude, if Lady Jane Grey had been Lord John Grey, England’s future would have been far more puritanical and extreme. While the heresy burnings of Mary I’s reign wouldn’t have happened, King John would probably have persecuted Catholics and possibly more moderate Protestants. There would have been no counter-Reformation, the Anglican Church we’re familiar with today may never have existed, being replaced by a rigid Calvinist church, there would have been no golden age, and the kingdom’s culture, politics and daily life would have been shaped by strict religious laws.
But history is never that simple. Would the English people have accepted such a radical regime? Or would they have resisted, Could civil unrest have toppled King John’s Puritan dynasty before it could take hold? Or would foreign powers help bring him down? Could Elizabeth have emerged as a unifying figure, uniting Catholics and Protestants against John’s radical regime and taking the throne?
It’s a fascinating “what if”—one that shows how much history hinges on tiny twists of fate. Let me know your thoughts in the comments, and I’m sure there are factors I’ve missed out, so please do add them.