Is Jane's birching based on historical fact?
-
Helenlaurence — 10 years ago(November 29, 2015 03:16 AM)
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
-
sweetloveu22 — 17 years ago(October 23, 2008 07:27 AM)
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. -
Leia5899 — 18 years ago(June 26, 2007 10:25 AM)
"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. -
little_miss_sunnydale — 18 years ago(June 26, 2007 04:38 PM)
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 didnt 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 anyones 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 -
kindredspirit03 — 18 years ago(June 27, 2007 06:54 PM)
"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 anyones 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 -
little_miss_sunnydale — 18 years ago(June 28, 2007 02:33 AM)
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. Guildfords 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 -
-
raemae1013 — 18 years ago(July 08, 2007 06:57 PM)
Ummmm 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.
-
little_miss_sunnydale — 18 years ago(July 09, 2007 01:14 AM)
In 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 Janes 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 -
ami_fee68 — 18 years ago(July 09, 2007 10:30 AM)
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! -
little_miss_sunnydale — 18 years ago(July 09, 2007 11:45 AM)
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 Im a gloomy person, but it would be interested to see another drama on Jane Greys 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 -
Helenlaurence — 10 years ago(November 29, 2015 04:13 AM)
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. -
silver_randomocity — 18 years ago(March 31, 2008 05:20 AM)
"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). -
Leia5899 — 18 years ago(June 26, 2007 10:21 AM)
"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. -
IsoldeJaneHolland — 18 years ago(September 10, 2007 03:10 PM)
Jane's mother Frances Grey was both a loathsome and ridiculous woman
who two weeks afte she became a widow married her stable groom! Which
makes her trying to compel her daughter to accept a strategic marriage
even more contemptible. At least in this film she looks like she feels
a bit guilt-stricken at the end, after Jane's death.
There is a brand new (pub 2007) book about the whole Lady Jane debacle
containing a lot about her parents, and written by a well known Tudor
Historian Alison Weir : Innocent Traitor. It's historical fiction. -
paige1357 — 17 years ago(November 16, 2008 07:03 PM)
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).
Which biographies can be trusted? -
little_miss_sunnydale — 17 years ago(November 17, 2008 03:26 AM)
Which biographies can be trusted?
Right now, there isnt much out there. However it seems that there will be some good works coming out sometime in the future. Eric Ives has written a biography on her life, which I think is out next year (definitely worth looking out for). Plus J. Stephan Edwards, who specialises in the life of Jane Grey, has also written a biography although there is yet a date for its release.
Incidentally Edwards has his own website and has listed numerous books relating to Jane. He has evaluated the usefulness and strength of each work:
http://www.somegreymatter.com/janegreybiblio.htm
He is also willing to answer questions, and his email address is provided on the website.
Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am