Talk:Lady Jane Grey

Edward VI's "Will"

May I just point out an obvious error of fact in the second paragraph of this article?

The error: "In June 1553, the dying Edward VI wrote his will ... The will removed his half-sisters ...."

King Edward VI of England and Ireland did not write or leave a "will." He was only 16 years old at the time of his death and thus a legal minor. Only legal adults can write or leave last wills and testaments. Indeed, the fact that he was still a legal minor was a significant obstacle to his attempt to alter the succession. The document that he wrote himself is known as The Devize for the Succession. It is not a "will," and it had no binding legal authority whatsoever. In a failed attempt to get around the issue of his age and his inability to leave a will, he resorted to transforming the Devize into letters patent in the hope that they might be legally binding. But because even that was legally "sketchy," he compelled a large number of civil and religious authorities to countersign the letters patent in the hope of bolstering the legal validity of the letters patent. Academics and scholars continue to debate their binding legal authority even today.

If this article is to be correct and factual, it should state, "On 21 June 1553, the dying Edward VI published letters patent countersigned by a large number of civil and religious authorities nominating ...."DesertSkies120 (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Navy

This article always frustrates me with its inclusion of so much speculation and narrative not supported by the sources. There is a statement in this article indicating that Mary "eventually took control over the Royal navy." The chronological context is very muddled in the article (it is July 20 in the first sentence of the paragraph, then some unspecified date prior to that in the second sentence, then July 19 in the fourth sentence), but there is no footnote to indicate precisely when Mary "took control over the Royal navy." "Took control" is extreme wording, and "eventually" is extremely imprecise, especially in a context of building support toward claiming the throne from Jane. I wonder whether the person who wrote that section may have misunderstood or misstated the narrative. Might they be referring to the handful of ships that changed allegiance to Mary sometime between 14 and 19 July? That hardly constitutes taking control over an entire national navy. She did not assume (not "take") effective control over the entire English navy until some time after reaching London. DesertSkies120 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Jane's Father's Title Duke of Suffolk

Pardon me while I go on another lengthy tirade, but once again some anonymous "editor" has seen fit to edit this article under the false assumption that they, the 'editor,' knows what they are doing. I get so very tired of amateurs with limited or no knowledge making damaging edits to this article!

80.189.76.144 edited the text to indicate that Jane's father Henry Grey was 2nd Duke of Suffolk, not first. That anonymous editor is perhaps unaware of how holders of titles of nobility are numbered. The only explanation for that erroneous edit is that the anonymous editor perhaps assumed that Henry Grey somehow inherited the title from his father-in-law.

Henry Grey did not inherit the title Duke of Suffolk. He was elevated to that dignity by the Crown in November 1551. It was a new creation and had no direct relation to Charles Brandon, a previous holder of the title Duke of Suffolk and father of Henry Grey's wife Frances. As such, Henry Grey was 1st Duke of Suffolk in a new and 3rd creation. If 80.189.76.144's logic were valid, Grey would have been 4th Duke of Suffolk, since Charles Brandon's son Henry became 2nd Duke (in the second creation) on the death of his father in 1545, and Henry's brother Charles became 3rd Duke (again in the second creation) on Henry's death in July 1551 before himself dying one hour later. And no, before anyone raises the objection, Jane's father Henry Grey did not become Duke of Suffolk "in right of his wife." The title was bestowed in a new creation, though the Suffolk designation was based in part on the fact that his wife's father had held that designation.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR WIKIPEDIA TO LOCK THIS ARTICLE TO PROTECT IT AGAINST EDITING BY PERSONS WHO SHOULD NOT BE EDITING IT?

Wikipedia's "open source editing" policy, or whatever they call it, remains a massive impediment to Wikipedia's credibility and to its ability to be accepted as a consistently reliable source of factual information. I am utterly terrified of what will happen to this article when the My Lady Jane fans start dropping in to wreak editorial havoc by inserting tidbits they have gleaned from that unfortunate travesty. And if you want to know what gives me the right to speak with authority on the subject of Jane Grey Dudley, just have a look at my UserPage.DesertSkies120 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Portraits and paintings included in this article

I just "undid" a revision by Alanscottwalker in which he had added some text to the caption of the Delaroche image. I removed the revision because a) it is unnecessary and b) the term "chopping block" is incorrect.

Regarding the two portraits said to depict Frances Brandon Grey and Henry Grey, I have to ask "Why?" Neither portrait depicts the individuals named in the captions. Even the data for the portrait of the woman says quite clearly that it is "A Woman," with zero indication that it depicts Frances Grey. Did someone just pick any old random portrait and toss it into this article as a portrait of Frances Grey? Why? No portrait of France Brandon Grey has ever been confirmed. The portrait of the male dates to a much later period, long after Henry Grey was dead. The source appears to be Richard Davey's NOVEL (FICTION!) from 1909. And while it has repeatedly (and erroneously) been published as a portrait of Henry Grey, it is in fact a portrait of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.

The portrait said to depict Guildford Dudley is from the Palace of Westminster and was painted in the 19th century. It is 100% imaginary ... fictitious. It is therefore useless for this article. DesertSkies120 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If chopping block is "incorrect" that's no reason for the revert, is beheading block more to your liking. The reason for the edit is tying the scene depicted by the artist with the text of the article, so I don't agree with your revert.

As for the other images, why did you not just remove them. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The correct term(s) ... the term(s) that academic historians like myself use ... is simply "the block" or "the executioner's block." But I understand that many Wikipedia users are not concerned with accuracy of details and instead prefer inaccurate colloquial terminology.

I do not myself see any need to "tie the scene depicted by the artist to the text of the article" since I think the association is very obvious. But perhaps you are correct ... perhaps some people have significant difficulty making the association unless it is explicitly pointed out to them.

And I never remove entire chunks of content posted by others because that too often leads to editing wars and petty power struggles. I prefer simply to point out the facts as they are currently known to academic historians and to leave the large-chunk editing to persons braver than myself. Wikipedia gives the same editing authority to average people who have read a Philippa Gregory or Alison Weir novel that it gives to recognized academic experts, so what can I do? DesertSkies120 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As for your problems with Wikipedia, you seem to be wasting your time and howling at the wind, (which by the way, DesertSky120, another thing about Wikipedia is you are actually anonymous no matter what you say, so count your overweening need to seek to qualify and requalify yourself as another useless gesture). You seem to be confused between the meanings of colloquial and incorrect, or just elide them into meaninglessness for another waste of rhetoric. And no, to understand the painting, you already have to be well versed in what historians say happened, but perhaps you don't care about audience in writing, which is just poor writing technique. At any rate, go on, ironically you seem to be enjoying yourself, howling at the wind. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to be offensive! Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The tone of Alanscottwalker's response is precisely why I do not engage directly in editing on Wikipedia. The slightest hints of criticism seems to cause certain types of people to become rude and offensive, as Johnbod kindly pointed out. I am quite happy to stand idly by and watch quietly as individuals introduce errors of fact into this article, if that is what it takes to keep from ruffling some peoples' feathers. "Truth" and "facts" are entirely subjective in the twenty-first century, after all.DesertSkies120 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-defined refs

Am guessing that both <ref name=":5"> and <ref name=":2"> should be for Porter (2010). Does anyone know the correct page number(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Porter (2010) isn't defined. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant Porter (2007). So we can just dump them and we don't need any {cn} tags? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The relevant text was copied from 1553 succession crisis without attribution but that page claims that Porter 2010 has over 9000 pages. It doesn't. There could be larger problems. DrKay (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)