Is Jane's birching based on historical fact?
Is there any historical evidence that Jane was really given a birching by her mother to coerce her into marrying Guildford? Or was it a Hollywood invention?
shareI've also wondered this; there appears to be a general consensus amongst historians that Jane was beaten by her parents into marrying Guildford. Apparently the incident is recorded to us by the Venetian Ambassador who learnt of the news at court and spread the news to Charles V and others abroad.
But I'm not quite sure whether this punishment would have been viewed as acceptable for the time or too harsh. Of course today the idea of beating someone into marriage sounds horrible, but back then Jane would have been viewed as defying her father. She was a noblewoman who was expected to marry a man of her parent's choice and go along with it happily. The use of force was viewed as acceptable back then to ensure a child was obedient. So I think that Jane was beaten but her parents actions were probably not frowned upon by contemporaries.
I think that the main reason that she did not wish to marry Guildford was his selfish, childish behaviour. Apparently he had been spoilt excessively by his mother. Although the movie suggests that they eventually feel in love, this was never the case.
We are born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs - Syrus
"Although the movie suggests that they eventually feel in love, this was never the case."
Where do you have that information from? In the tower of London where they were taken for execution, there's a turret where Guildford was held. Preserved in two places is Jane's name, which he scratched into the wall. Why would he do that if he wasn't in love with her?
-----------------
Here is where the birds sing! Here is where the sky is blue!
Where do you have that information from? In the tower of London where they were taken for execution, there's a turret where Guildford was held. Preserved in two places is Jane's name, which he scratched into the wall. Why would he do that if he wasn't in love with her?
There is no proof that Guildford made that sketch in the wall. In fact it is most likely the product of one of her supporters or it may have even been placed there after her death. There are names of several notable people inscribed onto the walls; this was usually done by their political supporters. It appears that the idea he was the one who carved it was yet another c19th romantic idea attached to Jane (the Victorians often elaborated ideas on her life due to their immense pity for her).
There is no indication that Jane and Guildford felt great affection for one another. In fact this idea is one created in romance novels and films. From Jane's own accounts we gather the picture that she didn't think very well of him and she refused for him to be crowned king when she became queen for a few days. Guildford was known to be a spoilt young man and compared with his brothers, did not make a good impression.
They both were extremely young when they married and it appears she was forced (even beaten) into marrying him.
We are born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs - Syrus share
Hmm... well, the movie certainly addressed his attitude with a beautifully done arc. I never take films as historical gospel - I've studied screenwriting too long to ever trust such things - but I really love the story in this film, and since it sounds like their love hasn't been proven false, but rather just not proven true, I'm going to stick to my romantic notions until I have time to read up on it. Thanks for the info, I'll add it to my to-read list. :o)
-----------------
Here is where the birds sing! Here is where the sky is blue!
While historical texts are not always gospel, this film is the first time I had ever heard the idea that Jane and Guildford were in love. So I remain sceptical to the idea that they were, considering the majority of evidence indicates overwise. It is a romantic notion to believe that they were in love and the idea of someone dying in their youth having not experienced everything in life is a sad one, however Jane's life was unfortunately extremely sad and unfulfilled. It is a same that not more research is done on the personal life of Jane; rather she is frequently viewed in a political context. However when her personal life is revealed, it is extremely poignant.
And the books I listed are really good reads - happy reading!!
We are born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs - Syrus
What gets to me is that in the movie (I have no idea on the bearing in reality) it seems that her father was the reason she was executed, without his actions she would have been imprisoned or less. Patrick Stewart was such an S.O.B. in this movie. He was fabulous, but I hated his character.
I have little trouble with remaining blissfully romantic about such incredibly tragic situations like that. All the people are gone. Ninety percent of their current existence is their story in our minds, and though historical record is important, I would rather bathe their souls in some happy memories, than let the open sores of their pain fester in the afterlife.
But that's just me. :o)
-----------------
Here is where the birds sing! Here is where the sky is blue!
What gets to me is that in the movie (I have no idea on the bearing in reality) it seems that her father was the reason she was executed, without his actions she would have been imprisoned or less. Patrick Stewart was such an S.O.B. in this movie. He was fabulous, but I hated his character.
Yes the foolish actions of her father condemned Jane and Guildford. Suffolk had been let off extremely lightly after the events of 1553 and it is surprising that he went on to participate in Wyatt's rebellion, knowing that his cause was lost. Fortunately the other Grey daughters did not face the same fate as Jane and were allowed back at court. However they too came to miserable ends. And Frances Grey died in childbirth in 1559. Tragedy ran through that family.
We are born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs - Syrus share
Although her father's rebellion was certainly the trigger for Mary to kill Jane, she was also being coerced by Phillip to get rid of Jane.
Also, Jane, in some ways, was responsible for her own demise, because it was her decision to send John Dudley, and not her father, to battle. Had Dudley stayed back, he possibly could have convinced the courts (I don't think that's the right term...) to stay loyal to Jane.
I also find it sad that the whole situation was manipulated from beginning to end... They forced her to marry, they forced her to become queen and then she got beheaded!
Reading up on it it looks like Guildford was also abusive to her and sadly it wasn't at all like the film.
So she was abused and used by everyone in her short life :(
Im afraid the film isnt accurate. If you search up on the movie, it sats so itself. Lady Jane felt for him when he was executed but there was no love between them on both parts, apparntly he was not a very nice youth, and from a book that i read he raped her on there wedding night. But obviously in them days he had rights, he was her husband after all. But please believe that the film is not accurate. Its a known fact.
And as for the writing on the wall within the Tower of London stating JANE, there has been no proof of his writing that, could have been one of her supporters,or even Jane Seymours brother referring to her his sister Jane Seymour.
"In the tower of London where they were taken for execution, there's a turret where Guildford was held. Preserved in two places is Jane's name, which he scratched into the wall. Why would he do that if he wasn't in love with her?"
Regardless of who did it, I found it to be one of the most moving things about the Tower of London. When I came home, I found myself wanting to learn more about Jane and all the others who were held in the Tower during the reigns of Henry VIII and Mary.
From what I have read, it was because she didn't trust the Dudley family, and rightfully so. Their actions also led to her beheading.
Jane's dislike of her marriage may have been over a number of things (e.g. she didn’t like the bridegroom, she just wanted to remain unmarried, she disliked her father-in-law, she thought she was marrying a family of lower rank etc). But, the idea that she thought her future father in law and his family were shifty may not have been the primary concern. By the time of Jane's marriage to Guildford, the idea that John Dudley was trying to place his son on the throne along with Jane was not in anyone’s mind (it is only in ours because we know how future events would unfold). The marriage between the Dudley and Grey households seemed perfectly logical at that time; there had been talk years before of Jane marrying Edward Seymour's son and when Dudley replaced Seymour it is unsurprising that a new prospect could be the marriage of Jane to his only unmarried son, Guildford. The Dudleys appeared to be a Protestant family, and if Jane was as zealous in her faith as some historians like to believe, then she would not have disliked the fact that her future family shared the same faith. Jane appears to have disliked her father-in-law (from accounts after her marriage), but perhaps this was a mixture of distrust and snobbery (John Dudley was in some respects a self-made man who had risen to power while Jane came from a very noble family with royal connections). But when she married Guildford nobody was publicly speaking about Dudley placing her on the throne; if anyone was actually plotting this at the time then it would have been John Dudley and Jane's parents. And they were hardly going to get Jane involved in this (Jane was extremely shocked when she was pronounced queen).
I think Jane's father also needs to take a large portion of the blame as to Jane's death. After the whole ‘Queen Jane’ fiasco, Jane was kept in the Tower and there were rumours that she would receive a pardon (she certainly was not immediately killed for actions). Then her father participated in Wyatt's rebellion against Mary's marriage and the result was the execution of Henry Grey along with his daughter and son-in-law. So both her father and her father-in-law had a hand in her death (along with, to some extent, Edward VI who officially changed the succession to favour Frances Brandon and her heirs and not his sisters).
We are born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs - Syrus share
"By the time of Jane's marriage to Guildford, the idea that John Dudley was trying to place his son on the throne along with Jane was not in anyone’s mind (it is only in ours because we know how future events would unfold)."
I'm not sure I agree with that. According to the biography I read (which by no means is gospel truth) John Dudley, knowing that Edward would soon die, drew up a plan to convince Edward that Mary and Elizabeth were illegitimate children and so put Jane on the throne. In doing this, not only would he keep a Protestant on the throne, but if he married Jane to Guilford, could establish his own family within the royal line. It's true Jane hated the thought of marriage to Guilford. He was pompous, bratty, and abusive in bed. When they were imprisoned in the Tower of London, Guilford became repentant and sought her forgiveness, admitting he etched her name in the wall. As I said, I don't know if all of this is absolute truth, but I'd be more inclined to believe what I read in a biography than what Hollywood likes to tell. :)
You don't have a soul; You are a soul, you have a body. C.S. Lewis
I'm not sure I agree with that. According to the biography I read (which by no means is gospel truth) John Dudley, knowing that Edward would soon die, drew up a plan to convince Edward that Mary and Elizabeth were illegitimate children and so put Jane on the throne. In doing this, not only would he keep a Protestant on the throne, but if he married Jane to Guilford, could establish his own family within the royal line. It's true Jane hated the thought of marriage to Guilford. He was pompous, bratty, and abusive in bed. When they were imprisoned in the Tower of London, Guilford became repentant and sought her forgiveness, admitting he etched her name in the wall. As I said, I don't know if all of this is absolute truth, but I'd be more inclined to believe what I read in a biography than what Hollywood likes to tell. :)
Firstly, many biographies on Jane are not entirely accurate (Chapman and Plowden's books use unusual sources that need to be questioned and they both are extremely biased and not indepth). I think the problem with many work on Jane is that it always portrays John Dudley in a sinister fashion. Yet for over 30 years Dudley's character has been reassessed by academic historians; he was known in his time as the 'Bad Duke' yet he appears to be much more competent than his predecessor and achieved more.
I'm sceptical about whether Dudley was actually thinking about placing his son and Jane on the throne by the time of their marriage. If he was, then no one else (apart from probably Jane's parents) would have known about this. Jane would certainly have not been informed, and we know later that she was shocked when she was told that she was queen. So why is she believed to be suspicious of the Dudleys? By the time of her marriage, John Dudley had secured his position with the backing of the rest of the council (Seymour had been incompetent for his position and many members of the council backed Dudley instead). Then Dudley became president of the council. So where does Jane's dislike for him and his family some in? The Dudleys appeared as devout Protestants so she would be marrying into a family who shared similar beliefs to her own (so she wouldn't be displeased about that). I think her disapproval over her marriage was really because she did not want to get married, regardless of who to, she may have disliked her bridegroom (who did not have a brilliant reputation compared to his brothers) and perhaps there was an element of snobbery involved (perhaps she though she was marrying into a family of up starters and she was from a more royal line).
Dudley has frequently been seen as the man who altered the succession. When Mary had established herself on the throne she asserted that Dudley had been behind the Lady Jane Grey affair, because she could not place blame unto the other person who established Jane on the throne - her brother. Edward VI was a zealous Protestant (he even wrote to his sister Mary lecturing her about the state of her soul and she was much older!), so its surprising that people ignore his involvement in the alteration of the succession. People assume that because of his young age he was not involved in government, but we know that he took an active interest in the progress of the Edwardian Reformation and within government. If he was such a devote Protestant, then he obviously would not want a Catholic to inherit the throne, but a Protestant relative instead. So I think he had a large role in the alteration of the succession.
And the idea that Guildford sketched the name on the wall was a romantic notion from the Victorians. They heavily romanticised Jane's life and often over praised her virtues, so a balanced picture of her and the events surrounding her downfall, was not produced.
Also the sketching was believed at one point to be the work of Northumberland; then it was believed to be Guildford. Guildford’s mother was called Jane, so if he did do the engraving, then I think it was more of a tribute to the woman closest in his life – his mother rather than his distant wife.
We are born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs - Syrus share
If Guildford scratched her name in the wall, it may have been a political statement rather than a personal one. The name of the woman who he believed was the rightful Queen of England. Queen Jane.
shareUmmmm ......... did you know that Guilford's mother was also named Jane, it is just as possible that it was for her. Historians that even believe it to be carved by Guilford also speculate that it was done for either two reasons. 1. He was for some odd reason pining forhis wife, or 2. He was longing for the mother he had grown attachted to over a span of sixteen/seventeen years. Although, if it had been done for Jane isn't it possible they had grown as friends over the months and merely liked to chat. It isn't fair to say that the word Jane was in the wall, so Guilford and Jane were in love, although it is something people would like to believe. And take in to evidence the fact that Guilford asked to see Jane soon to their execution date and Jane refused.
shareIn my last post I did state the possibility that if Guildford did carve the name into the wall it was probably in honour of his mother, Jane, who he was closer to rather than his distant wife. It seems more logical that it was for her.
The film tries to indicate that Jane and Guildford were in love but the sad reality is that by looking at the evidence of this period their relationship appears distant. The meeting that Guildford requested is not necessarily a sign of affection especially considering Jane refused to see him and he may have just wished to see her to comfort himself or properly say goodbye to his wife (it was customary to say goodbye to family relatives before execution; Jane wrote her farewells to her father and her sister in order to settle affairs). So it appears more customary rather than romantic. Also the Victorian historian Agnes Strickland in her work on Jane mentions that Guildford wished to see his wife to give her a ‘one last kiss’. Unfortunately Strickland uses no evidence to back this up, rather she made up the idea that Guildford wished to see his wife for romantic reasons (this is just one of many things Strickland creates in order to romanticise Jane’s life). Some recent historians have even rejected the idea that Guildford even wanted to see Jane (like Plowden). The gloomy reality was that Jane died young and therefore missed out on many opportunities. So her life is often romanticised, not only in order to place even more emphasis on her pathetic end but also to compensate for the fact that she died without fulfilling her life. Its comforting and appealing but ultimately unrealistic.
We are born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs - Syrus
I didn't know that about the mother, and it's a good point. I am by no means demanding anyone's acceptance that they were in love. I just prefer - though facts are quite fascinating - my own delusions, when there is simply nothing more to be done for someone's plight. By the way, when was the last time you carved the initials into a wall, tree or bathroom stall of someone you "just liked to chat with"???????
"It was customary to say goodbye to family relatives before execution"
And I would rather live with the warm thoughts that people back then had real feelings than that they said goodbye to their relatives before execution, for no other reason than that it was the proper thing to do. I'm sure that still happens even today, but as I have said many times on the Pride & Prejudice board: Real life is not Masterpiece Theatre. People were not on their best behavior 24/7, dressed like the queen between balls, or physically able to be unemotional just because emotion was a societal faux pas.
-----------------
Here is where the birds sing! Here is where the sky is blue!
didn't know that about the mother, and it's a good point. I am by no means demanding anyone's acceptance that they were in love. I just prefer - though facts are quite fascinating - my own delusions, when there is simply nothing more to be done for someone's plight. By the way, when was the last time you carved the initials into a wall, tree or bathroom stall of someone you "just liked to chat with"???????
I would argue that it makes more sense that if Guildford did carve the sketch on the wall it was done out of affection for one who had a great impact upon his life and of whom he appears to have been closest to; his mother. It is of course more romantic to imagine he was pining for his wife, but I always had the stronger belief that he was pining more for his mother than for his distant wife. It is certainly not a romantic image but still a rather pitiful one.
And I would rather live with the warm thoughts that people back then had real feelings than that they said goodbye to their relatives before execution, for no other reason than that it was the proper thing to do.
I didn't argue that people in the sixteenth century were devoid of feelings. Instead if Guildford did actually ask for such a meeting, I don't think this is an indication of their love, but was a mixture of properly saying goodbye to a family member and in addition, the meeting may have been requested by Guildford in order to find some comfort for himself rather than with his wife. Understandably he was nervous about his execution (and he was said to have wept while walking to the scaffold). Jane's resolve was firmer and I imagine it would have been somewhat comforting for him to have seen someone, regardless of whom, in a similar position to him that had a strong resolve. He may have even wished to seek religious comfort with her. However Jane appears to have been more collected than him at that point and she could derive comfort and courage from other means aside from him. I don't think this lack of romance is dull; it makes Jane and Guildford appear more human and highlights Jane's resolve. I also think the lack of romance makes things more pathetic and makes the actual events even more tragic. Lol; perhaps I’m a gloomy person, but it would be interested to see another drama on Jane Grey’s life which takes a different viewpoint from this one and depicts a more realistic relationship between Guildford and Jane. It may be a sad drama but Jane's life wasn't exactly frivolous.
We are born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs - Syrus share
The mother thing doesn't ring true to me somehow. Would he have even called his mother Jane?
I'm not saying he did scratch that in the wall- it could have been someone else entirely or a different Jane.
The whole thing is so sad I understand why people want to romanticise it, but it's doubtful they had a romantic relationship as depicted in the film.
"Where do you have that information from? In the tower of London where they were taken for execution, there's a turret where Guildford was held. Preserved in two places is Jane's name, which he scratched into the wall. Why would he do that if he wasn't in love with her?"
Umm, yeah, Guilford's mother was named Jane. Some historians think that if the carving was done by Guilford, it was done as him pining for the mother who spoilt him rotten (probably in hope of her finding a way for him to leave the tower and the mess his father got into).
"I think that the main reason that she did not wish to marry Guildford was his selfish, childish behaviour. Apparently he had been spoilt excessively by his mother. Although the movie suggests that they eventually feel in love, this was never the case."
From what I have read, it was because she didn't trust the Dudley family, and rightfully so. Their actions also led to her beheading.
[deleted]