Did Edward love Jane?
did he want to marry her if he did not die?
shareNo; the real Edward was not said to have wished to marry Jane. Rather from a young age he was betrothed to Queen Mary of Scotland and then in 1550-51 to Elisabeth of France and seems to have viewed this match favourably. Edward was not the one who wished to marry Jane - rather it seems that her parents were keen on the match and wished for Thomas Seymour, Edward’s uncle, to encourage the scheme. But of course it never did occur as Seymour fell from favour, Edward was more interested in other marriage candidates and Jane of course was married off in 1553 to Guildford Dudley. I think at one point there were even talks or she may have even been betrothed to the duke of Somerset’s eldest son. But of course the marriage never took place owing to Somerset’s downfall.
‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’
This is the sort of question which it is almost impossible to answer. There is no documentation on how Edward felt about Jane; he never mentioned her in his Chronicle (which in any case included basically no opinions or emotions) and there are no surviving letters from the one to the other, if any such letters ever existed.
Personally, I would LIKE to believe that Edward loved Jane. We do know that they had lessons together as children, that they had a close and friendly relationship, and that there were marriage negotiations at one point for them (pushed for, as the poster above me mentioned, by Thomas Seymour, Edward's uncle, who wanted the match because Jane was his ward). Furthermore, they seem to have been very alike in character, both having been strongly religious Protestants and both being extremely intelligent, bookish, and with a love of learning.
To me, the strongest evidence that he loved Jane is that evidence suggests that the idea for her to succeed him as Queen was actually his, not John Dudley's. Indeed, there are records of how Edward, when already ill and dying, used the last of his strength to passionately plead to the judges of the King's Bench to honour his wishes and make Jane his heir. From Chris Skidmore's wonderful biography of Edward VI;
"Edward's detailed revisions demonstrate that he had thought very deeply over the nature of the English succession...Edward had resolved in his own mind that Jane would succeed him, but in order that the legal ends be tied up, on June 12the judges of the King's Bench were summoned by the council to discuss the matter of the succession...the meeting broke up unresolved.
The next day the judges returned to face Edward himself. He demanded angrily to know why his wishes had not been obeyed, to which they explained that to do so 'would put the Lords and us in danger of treason'.
Despite his evident weakness, Edward 'with sharp words and angry countenance' adressed the room...he demanded that his cousin Jane be his heir...Edward's efforts in peruading his councillors to agree to his devise had taken their toll. With the letters patents signed, he gave up any hope of recovery"
If Edward was willing to use up the last of his strength to ensure that Jane would be queen, this suggests, to me, at the very least an extremely high level of respect and admiration, and possibly something more. Obviously, a huge part of this was that Edward, a devout Protestant, didn't want the throne to go to Catholic Mary. But if that had been all, one wonders why he wouldn't have named Elizabeth, also a Protestant as his heir. You can make convincing cases that Edward felt nothing but cousinly friendship for Jane, but I like to think that he loved her, hoped to marry her and make her his queen, and when he realized he was dying was determined to make her his queen in a different way, because he admired her and thought she would be a good queen. Certainly there is some evidence to support this theory.
Of course, the theory does have its flaws. Evidence against it would be that Edward allowed the negotiations for the marriage with Jane to fall through, and there is no evidence that he gave any objection. He was subsequently betrothed to the Princess Elisabeth of France. He also does seem to have encouraged Jane's marriage with Guildford Dudley - and certainly, as King, it could not have taken place without his permission. The way I would explain this, though, was that Edward realized that he could never enforce the Devise without John Dudley's backing, and therefore gave John Dudley a motivation for wanting Jane to be Queen.
If Edward was willing to use up the last of his strength to ensure that Jane would be queen, this suggests, to me, at the very least an extremely high level of respect and admiration, and possibly something more. Obviously, a huge part of this was that Edward, a devout Protestant, didn't want the throne to go to Catholic Mary. But if that had been all, one wonders why he wouldn't have named Elizabeth, also a Protestant as his heir. You can make convincing cases that Edward felt nothing but cousinly friendship for Jane, but I like to think that he loved her, hoped to marry her and make her his queen, and when he realized he was dying was determined to make her his queen in a different way, because he admired her and thought she would be a good queen. Certainly there is some evidence to support this theory.
I agree that there was an element of respect, as after all it is hard to believe that Edward would have left the throne to someone he thought badly of. However I think dislike of the other, more eligible candidate (Mary) pushed Edward’s drive for another. And at first it was not even to be Jane, but her ‘heirs males’, which of course was impossible owing to the fact that Edward was dying quickly and did not have time to see Jane produce a male heir.
Elizabeth also had to be overlooked because the act or removing Mary inevitably meant the destruction of Elizabeth’s claim. Edward could not argue that Mary was illegitimate because their father stated so and therefore not eligible to rule and not beat Elizabeth with the same stick. Henry has after all bastardised her in 1536. So if Mary was unsuitable because of her status, then Elizabeth too had to be deemed as inappropriate to rule. Plus part of Edward’s fears in regards to Mary was because she was single and could potentially marry a foreigner and allow him to overpower her thus ruling the country as a King Regent. Elizabeth too was unmarried so if he was to have such concerns about Mary it seems understandable that such fears would extent to his other sister. Jane on the other hand had a husband and he was English which soothed the xenophobic sentiments prevalent in that society. He was also a Protestant which also suited Edward.
I personally think the two did not love one another and did not exactly spend much time in each other’s company (Jane was not raised with Edward as she entered Parr’s household in 1547, then for sometime in Seymour’s care and then she went back to Bradgate. Certainly by 1551 she was more at court but I wouldn’t say that even then she was close to Edward but as a member of his extended family to be treated with great courtesy and privilege). He is also never asserted to have spoken about her in romantic terms.
If there was a Jane he was raised with, it was Jane Dormer, who coincidentally became one of Mary I’s loyalist ladies-in-waiting and a devout Catholic. Apparently when the pair were about 4/5 years old Edward would call her ‘my Jane’. Then when the boy was packed off to the male-dominated schoolroom she was sent away.
‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’ share
Elizabeth also had to be overlooked because the act or removing Mary inevitably meant the destruction of Elizabeth’s claim. Edward could not argue that Mary was illegitimate because their father stated so and therefore not eligible to rule and not beat Elizabeth with the same stick. Henry has after all bastardised her in 1536. So if Mary was unsuitable because of her status, then Elizabeth too had to be deemed as inappropriate to rule.
You're not the first one I've heard say this, but I've never quite understood why. There's no reason why saying Mary was illegitimate automatically meant Elizabeth was too. Why couldn't he just have declared that Henry VIII's marriage to Katherine of Aragon was null and void because of her previous marriage to Arthur Tudor, but his marriage to Anne Boleyn was valid? Thus Mary becomes illegitimate and Elizabeth can inherit.
share
You're not the first one I've heard say this, but I've never quite understood why. There's no reason why saying Mary was illegitimate automatically meant Elizabeth was too. Why couldn't he just have declared that Henry VIII's marriage to Katherine of Aragon was null and void because of her previous marriage to Arthur Tudor, but his marriage to Anne Boleyn was valid? Thus Mary becomes illegitimate and Elizabeth can inherit.
Several reasons. Firstly if Edward was basing his decision to exclude Mary on the fact that their father had made her illegitimate then it would be extremely odd if he would listen to his father in this respect but not in regards to the Boleyn marriage. After all under English law his father had never been lawfully married to either woman. So in order to legitimise Elizabeth to keep her in his new succession, Edward would have had to build a case for her legitimacy and overturn their father's decisions of 1536. This meant getting parliament to legitimise Elizabeth and Edward did not have the time (or the motivation) to do this.
Furthermore Henry had annulled his second marriage to make way for his third. Whilst Anne was dead by the time Henry married Jane Seymour he still had his marriage to her annulled in order to remove any impediment behind his union with Jane thus raising no doubts as to the legitimacy of any children he had with Jane. The 1536 Act of Succession illegitimated Elizabeth (and again illegitimated Mary) to make the way for any future children. Of course Edward turned out to be the subsequent child. Had he meddled with the succession he was ultimately deeming his father as a wife-murderer and bringing a lot of salacious attention to his own parent's union. It was much better asserting that Henry had Anne Boleyn, the Marchioness of Pembroke, killed than Anne Boleyn the Queen Consort (aka his legal wife!).
Another key reason was Elizabeth (and Mary's) single state. Obviously both Mary and Elizabeth were women and women during this period were subject to the authority of their husbands. Although they were to be Queen Regents, thus hold power in their own right, there was still a lot of uncertainty at this point regarding whether women should rule and what would occur if a female should come to the throne. It was naturally assumed that they would marry and this raised a number of questions. Were they to be completely subservient to their husbands? To not allow him any control was an unnerving idea to early modern people yet at the same time there was fear that the man in question could rule the kingdom through his wife. One of the main excuses Edward used to cast aside his sisters was, he stated, he worried that Elizabeth and Mary could marry foreigners and allow their husbands control of the kingdom. Xenophobic sentiments were rife throughout this period and there were equal fears about a French or Spanish marriage for either woman (and such fears were very prominent after Mary decided to marry Philip of Spain in 1554). Jane Grey on the other hand was married to an Englishman; her relatives (and husband's family) were English. Thus she was a more reliable candidate in Edward's eyes than his unmarried sisters.
‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’ share
Ah, that explains it. Thanks for clearing that up, it's something I never understood.
On a similar note, do you know what excuse he used for skipping overy Mary, Queen of Scots. Obviously the reason he didn't want her was that she was Catholic, but I'm assuming he didn't just come right out and say so. It seems to me that after Elizabeth and Mary (Tudor), Mary, Queen of Scots had the next-best claim, a better claim than Jane Grey. After all she was descended from Henry VIII's older sister, Margaret Tudor, while Jane descended from the younger sister, Mary Tudor Brandon. Surely Margaret's descendants had a stronger claim than Mary's, since Margaret was the older? So what reason was given for skipping over Mary Stuart?
By the way, little_miss_sunnydale, I want to mention that I always enjoy reading your posts. You clearly know your history extremely well, particularly about the Tudors.
That's ok!
On a similar note, do you know what excuse he used for skipping overy Mary, Queen of Scots. Obviously the reason he didn't want her was that she was Catholic, but I'm assuming he didn't just come right out and say so. It seems to me that after Elizabeth and Mary (Tudor), Mary, Queen of Scots had the next-best claim, a better claim than Jane Grey. After all she was descended from Henry VIII's older sister, Margaret Tudor, while Jane descended from the younger sister, Mary Tudor Brandon. Surely Margaret's descendants had a stronger claim than Mary's, since Margaret was the older? So what reason was given for skipping over Mary Stuart?
As you note her Catholicism would have not pleased Edward. I suspect the fact that her betrothal to him had been broken and she had been sent to France and become betrothed to the dauphin also did not put her high in Edward's priorities anymore. But chiefly the main reason why she was not included is because Mary Stewart had been excluded from Henry VIII's succession and will. Henry had bypassed the heirs of his sister Margaret and instead named the heirs of his sister, Mary, as those who were to come directly after his children in the succession. Thus when Edward cast aside his sisters the next heir according to his father's succession was his first cousin Frances Brandon and her daughters.
By the time Elizabeth I was on the throne, the Scottish side of the family became more desirable prospects, probably because the other side of the family had significantly disgraced themselves! Mary pressed for her own claim and enforced this by marrying her first cousin, another Tudor descendent. Therefore her child (James) had such a notable claim, and later the finances and the power to support his claim, so it became hard to overlook this side of the family. Technically Elizabeth had distant male cousins who descended from Eleanor Brandon, Mary Tudor's daughter. But they seemed further down the line than Mary Stewart who was only Elizabeth's cousin once removed and who was actively seeking the position of heir.
By the way, little_miss_sunnydale, I want to mention that I always enjoy reading your posts. You clearly know your history extremely well, particularly about the Tudors.
Thank you! I think the Tudors were the most fascinating monarchs in English history (and the sixteenth century in general a remarkable period).
‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’ share
. But chiefly the main reason why she was not included is because Mary Stewart had been excluded from Henry VIII's succession and will. Henry had bypassed the heirs of his sister Margaret and instead named the heirs of his sister, Mary, as those who were to come directly after his children in the succession.
Why did Henry do that? Was it the Catholicism, or Margaret's disreputable life, or what? Or was it the wars with Scotland? And how did HE excuse it?
By the time Elizabeth I was on the throne, the Scottish side of the family became more desirable prospects, probably because the other side of the family had significantly disgraced themselves! Mary pressed for her own claim and enforced this by marrying her first cousin, another Tudor descendent.
That's right - wasn't Elizabeth actually really upset that Mary married Darnley?
share
Why did Henry do that? Was it the Catholicism, or Margaret's disreputable life, or what? Or was it the wars with Scotland? And how did HE excuse it?
IIRC, Henry’s last will states his final succession in a matter of fact way without noting why he chose the heirs of Mary Tudor over those of the heirs of Margaret Tudor. But his decisions, affirmed previously in the 1544 Act of Succession, can be seen as having been shaped by several attitudes and events.
He ultimately regarded Margaret Douglas (his niece) as illegitimate. He also had disagreed with her on the subject of religion as Margaret remained a devout Catholic even after Henry’s break from Rome. So that is why she was particularly overlooked. As for the rest of the Scottish side of the family, I think it was primarily due to the fact that Henry did not want a Scottish clamant, like the young Scottish Queen, becoming the English monarch. Technically there was nothing suspect about Mary Stewart’s legitimacy as Henry recognised Margaret Tudor’s marriage to James IV, thus recognised James V’s legitimacy and Mary Stewart’s legitimacy. However Henry had come into conflict with his brother-in-law and his nephew and by the time of his death in 1547 there was still significant antagonism and mistrust between the English and the Scottish. Also Henry wanted his son to marry Mary Stewart and such a plan was official policy by the time of Henry’s death. So I think he viewed Mary Stewart as a future Queen Consort of England and was not concerned with providing her with a claim to be Queen Regent. Ultimately though Henry’s succession was rather English; after all Mary Tudor’s children had heirs by English husbands and so Henry’s niece Frances Brandon and her Grey children were all raised in England and (conveniently) were all raised to adhere to the Henrician Church.
That's right - wasn't Elizabeth actually really upset that Mary married Darnley?
I think there is some debate surrounding this issue. Whilst some like John Guy promote the idea that Elizabeth was not thinking of a marriage between Darnley and Mary when she allowed Darnley to go to Scotland in 1565, others question Elizabeth’s decision to send him to Scotland particularly as there was already talk of a possible marriage between the pair. Officially though the English were angry at the marriage – didn’t Elizabeth refuse to recognise the marriage at first or address Darnley by his new titles?
Elizabeth hated the subject of the succession and Mary’s marriage to Darnley forced the issue back to public attention. So I think she was unnerved, particularly as Mary’s claims had significantly strengthened by the marriage. And Elizabeth was reputed to have been rather melancholy when she heard the news of James VI’s birth.
‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’ share
[deleted]
Lord Darnley, like Mary Stuart, was a descendent of Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII's older sister) and therefore he, too, could be regarded as having a claim on the throne of England. Elizabeth was upset at the marriage of Mary and Darnley because together they represented quite a strong claim on her crown, and were a potential threat. (And of course, upon Elizabeth's death decades later, the crown did indeed pass to their only son.)
I personally think that Henry VIII chose to disinherit the descendents of his sister Margaret because, by the time he made that will, the Queen of Scotland was the child Mary. She was firmly under the control of her mother and her mother's relations, the very powerful and very Catholic Guise family of France. Had she inherited the throne of England in addition to that of Scotland, control of the country would have fallen to the Guises and their Catholic associates, including the Pope. That's the last thing he would have wanted.
One historical quirk that's always intrigued me is this:
Henry VIII had his Queen, Anne Boleyn, executed for adultery, incest and treason (one of her accused lovers was her brother George, and adultery in a Queen was defined as treason). Most modern historians reject the idea that she was guilty of the charges.
In the few days between her conviction and her execution, Henry sent an emissary to her at the Tower to persuade her to sign papers stating that she had been pre-contracted to an English nobleman, the future Earl of Northumberland, when she was young. This pre-contract would have been regarded as legally binding under the law and would have meant that her marriage to Henry VIII had never been valid. I've read that the emissary (Cranmer?) persuaded her to sign by offering her a French swordsman as executioner, which would be an easier death than an English axe.
By admitting to the pre-contract (which, by the way, the Earl of Northumberland denied to his death) Anne nullified her marriage and made her daughter a bastard. She went to her execution, then, not as the Queen but as the Marquess of Pembroke, the title Henry had given her in her own right in the fall of 1532.
But -- if she and Henry had never been married, how could she be guilty of adultery?
By forcing her to agree to the annulment of their marriage, Henry removed the grounds for her conviction and execution!
Of course, by this time he was well beyond being able to see logic if it conflicted with his will, but it's an undeniable point, isn't it?