Talk:Lady Jane Grey/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Family tree

i'd like to suggest that the family tree be changed from left to right (i.e. Lady Jane Grey on the right). This is a more natural way of reading it (in english anyway). Stanlavisbad (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, genealogical stemma have for centuries been written, displayed, and read in a vertical direction from top to bottom. This pattern has been used in most European languages, not just English. PhD Historian (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, i'm aware of this. either vertical or L-R would be more preferable i think. possibly selected great-grandparents (i.e. only the ones relevant to the article) would also be a good modification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanlavisbad (talk • contribs) 10:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. See my note above under "Unnecessary and erroneous trivia." PhD Historian (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been nearly 10 years since this discussion about presentation in this article of the scope and content of Jane's ancestry has been discussed. Since then, the section containing it has been made collapsible by default -- invisible to any visitors to the article unless they choose to click open "Ancestry". Moreover, new sources and information about contributing factors in her life may have emerged. I, and at least one other editor who had not previously weighed in, see merit in allowing the Ahnentafel to remain for a while to allow more sources to be included, now that renewed attention is being drawn to this section. I ask for a period of patience. FactStraight (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's over-detailed. The key descent is from Henry VII and his son-in-law and grandson-in-law. The other ancestors are irrelevant. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Well only if one thinks genealogy itself is unimportant. It has 5 generations. And this is a drop-down menu. One only needs to see it if one is interested.Flyte35 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Genealogy is important to a general encyclopedia article if it conveys concrete information. Jane's descent from Henry VII is a vital piece of information and should be illustrated. Jane's descent from a certain Elizabeth Wingfield is entirely unimportant. WP:NOTGENEALOGY plainly states: "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." Hiding such painfully trivial information does not make it more acceptable. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information. Surtsicna (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion of recent generations of genealogical information is not confined to "concrete" information (although included ancestry is concrete data, and if not, any such "ancestor" can be omitted). The standard is, rather, that it "support the reader's understanding". In a drop-down menu labeled "Ancestry" that the reader only sees upon choosing to do so, such "support" information should be construed more broadly than in other bio sections where, for instance, birthdates are nonetheless included because they are standard, just as it is standard in English Wikipedia to include Ahnentafels for royalty and ruling families, whose chief notability habitually lies in their kinships rather than their individual deeds. For such persons, readers are more apt to expect to find some background on ancestry indicative of the person's status, origin, order in the succession, multi-nationality, familial rise, degree of pedigree collapse, etc. Ahnentafels are a compact way to provide interested readers allusions to that data which they can readily pursue according to their interests by clicking links, where they exist. It's natural that not all readers will agree on precisely what info is relevant, but the near ubiquity of Ahnentafels in dynastic bios is indicative that they have not heretofore been truncated as "trivia", and that label in this case is a debatable opinion, not a finding of fact. FactStraight (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing against including recent ancestors into a chart. Jane's great-great-grandparents are people whom not even her grandparents met. They are not her recent ancestors, nor are they in any way tied to her notability. Her ancestry is relevant and needed up to the fourth generation, not the fifth or sixth or further. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Arguing over some precise definition of "recent" ancestry is a diversion, as is what degree is "needed" (nothing in Wikipedia is "needed", since articles are created and enhanced by voluntary editors at their leisure), and we are in disagreement about the relevance. No matter how much wikilawyering is deployed to foil opponents with which we disagree, the reality is that there is no fully objective test for determining what kind or amount of accurate information is included in articles, which is why we discuss it here -- a far more respectful process than trying to invoke "rules" that eliminate from others' view that in which one lacks interest. Jane Grey's ancestry is part of the history which makes her notable -- which is another way of saying "encyclopedically interesting". I and others believe that more rather than less of that history meets that criterion of interest. For those likely to find it less interesting, the drop-down menu maximizes the degree to which their attention is protected from distracting material. I'm interested in arguments to reduce visibility in this format to the dynastic ancestry of a Jane Grey that build a case that her ancestry is so full of dead ends that more background on her story will elude you despite ancestral links given, but less so in "Oh, we've found an interpretation of some word or rule that allows us to exclude what we think you ought not to see here." FactStraight (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

There may not be a fully objective test, but there is reason and policy. Both suggest that the ancestors mentioned in the article should be those mentioned in the high-quality secondary sources specializing in the subject of the article. Instead of long-winded and borderline paranoid responses (wikilawyering?), please try to succinctly address the points that I make like I address those that you make. It beats me as to why you are so intent on portraying me as someone who does not want Jane's ancestry to be presented. Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Policy does not specify how many generations of ancestry this or other articles may include, and the framework of Wikipedia allows six to be displayed, so nothing's been proposed that is not well within policy. We are in the process of "reasoning" this matter out according to differing perspectives, so it is neither stated as policy nor yet decided by "reason" that "the ancestors mentioned" should be restricted to "those mentioned in the high-quality secondary sources specializing in the subject of the article". While that standard tends to guide prose content in Wikipedia articles, as has been repeatedly noted, ancestry tables are not that kind of information, being: 1. standard in Wikipedia dynastic bios where ancestry tends to be of unique importance, 2. offered in a drop-down, familiar table visible only to those looking for it and optimized for less exclusionary criteria than for prose selection, and 3. compact presentations of allusive, as well as explicatory, information, heavy with links readily available for readers interested in pursuing more data of its kind. Those points have been succinctly raised before but have not been addressed. FactStraight (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Framework of Wikipedia allows seven to be displayed too. Why not seven? 1. Appeal to tradition. It is standard because a handful of users were very prolific and efficient in copy-pasting this content without ever consulting anyone and despite heavy opposition. Some users, such as Srnec and Agricolae, have successfully kept this trivia out of the articles to which they made major contributions. 2. Hiding content does not make the said content relevant or appropriate to include. If it were relevant and helpful to understanding of the topic, nobody would want it hidden from sight. 3. Ahnentafels are anything but explicatory. For instance, the ahnentafel in this article fails to explain the relevance of Henry Bruyn; who he was, what he did, and why he is mentioned. And that brings us back to policy. There is indeed a policy, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, that says what type of content Wikipedia should not include. Data without context provides no encyclopedic value and as such does not belong in an encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

As FactStraight says above, and as we've discussed elsewhere (fairly extensively), the policy you're referencing says nothing about the number of generations that should be included in genealogical charts. The information here is presented with context (the people are the ancestors of the subject of the article). Since the presentation of this information is clear and easy to comprehend, I don't see any reason to cut this one down. There is no standard or policy here indicating that the importance of every person shown in a genealogical chart must be mentioned in the text of the article. And that doesn't really seem like a reasonable thing to begin to try to apply, either here or elsewhere.Flyte35 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the policy does not say anything about the number of generations ahnentafels should say. It would be a ridiculously trivial thing for a policy to address. Instead, it addresses a wider topic of suitability for inclusion. Data without context is not suitable for inclusion. And no, listing 30 names and saying those names are the names of the subject's ancestors does not provide any context. It merely dumps data. It does not explain why Henry Bruyn is relevant enough to be mentioned. Here are some examples of charts with context: Stephen I of Hungary#Family, Elizabeth of Bosnia#Family tree, Alice of Champagne#Family, Mary, Queen of Scots#Family tree, Alfonso the Battler#Competitors for succession. Finally, the idea that it is okay for an article to mention people irrelevant to its topic is downright bizarre. Surtsicna (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

How are a person's ancestors irrelevant to the topic? I find Surtsicna's argument to be in his/her words "downright bizarre". When I read about a historical figure, the first thing I want to know is his/her genealogy, not trivia concerning politics. Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It is rare and fascinating that only one among Lady Jane Grey's ancestors back to her eight great-grandparents reigned, yet she became queen regnant despite that fact and was beheaded partially because of it. It is one of the strange facts that has kept public interest in this teenager's life and background alive for almost five centuries. Different encyclopedia users seek different kinds of information in biographical articles. Yet we are here told that readers' interest in recent royal ancestry -- even when presented in a succinct, optional format -- is too ridiculous, irrelevant or bizarre to be allowed to be seen in Wikipedia (unless increasingly minimized) -- when in fact that continues to be the norm, contributed by Wikipedia editors on an ongoing basis who thereby express affirmation of its value. That's the basic claim here. Those disinterested are entitled to their opinion, and can easily bypass such information without relentlessly pouring contempt on the rest of us. FactStraight (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday I saw the ancestry table shrunk again on the grounds that there is a current consensus to "keep it short", which was reverted. I can't find that consensus. I do not, however, object to leaving the chart intact, but tagged to indicate that some editors still prefer to see it reduced, and are participating in an ongoing discussion here about that. FactStraight (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This business is getting a bit odd. The question under discussion here is about whether or not it's a good idea to cut down the ancestry chart here, which has been on this page for a decade. The discussion that took place in 2007 is irrelevant. That discussion had to do with this version of the article and the appropriateness of including her patrilineal descent and a list of her titles. No one is arguing that information should be included again. Flyte35 (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

So I removed the overly detailed tag on the grounds that this had been pretty extensively discussed. Does anyone object to this? Flyte35 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The section still contains "an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience", as the tag says. It is the kind of detail not found in high-quality modern secondary sources specializing in Lady Jane Grey, the subject of this article. Surtsicna (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in Wikipedia policy, guidelines or precedent indicates that names of persons displayed in an article chart shall be restricted to "those mentioned in the high-quality secondary sources specializing in the subject of the article" (whatever those may be). That criterion is more suitable to prose content included in the main body of the article. It is an overly restrictive standard to be applied to a drop-down table visible only to those looking for what is apt to be included in a section explicitly labeled "Ancestry". FactStraight (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There exists a very sensible policy stating that only data put in context with explanations are suitable for inclusion. There is no policy, guideline, or consensus stating that drop-down tables of any kind should be an exception to this basic principle. Information does not become more relevant or less excessively intricate when we hide it from plain sight; the need to hide it from plain sight is, in fact, the evidence of its irrelevancy. Surtsicna (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Using a drop-down chart to display allusive material is not evidence that the material is irrelevant (although if you find it so that may well indicate that it is irrelevant to you, and therefore you are well-served by a format that allows you to bypass it without ado). Rather it is evidence that Wikipedia has the tools and responsiveness to make content more efficient and user-friendly for its readers, whose scope of interest in a topic can be expected to vary from individual to individual. If every datum mentioned in a historical bio had to be "put in context with explanations" Wikipedia articles would become endless and unfocused, which no one in this discussion advocates. Data may appropriately be included which provides limited background and which briefly alludes to broader or more detailed information about the subject. Ancestry tables are a common, concise and reader-friendly way of displaying such data, and the drop-down format renders it inobtrusive, a win-win outcome for all. FactStraight (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I might be missing something there, but we had a discussion about this (above). I understand that you would prefer it if this genealogical contained less information, but you're in the minority on this one. It seems to me fairly simple. There was a question. We talked about it. There was no consensus to cut down the ancestry chart here. There was a week with no no additional commentary and, thus, it seem seems to me it's appropriate to remove the tag on the section in question.Flyte35 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I would not prefer that it contained less information. I would prefer that it contained the appropriate information. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we are not voting. Comments about minorities and majorities are thus unhelpful. Also, the removal of the tag was opposed by three users. Surtsicna (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No one said anything about voting. The question under discussion here was about whether or not it's a good idea to cut down the standard, 5-generation ancestry chart used in this article. We've discussed this. There is no consensus that's a good idea to change this ancestry chart. Thus, it seems to me this issue has been sufficiently addressed and it's appropriate to remove the tag. I think we might be getting to dead horse territory here. Flyte35 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish to report that I was undertaking some background research on Lady Jane Grey, a day ago, and the royal and noble and commoner milieu her heritage includes, and I visited this article in search of the "detailed" geneological chart that I found here. I would object to the truncation of the existing geneology, to "important" or "appropriate" detail, as I sought the detailed (incomplete, mind you, as siblings are not listed) family tree that I found here. I removed the template accordingly. I see that the has been put back again within a day. In my view, it should be removed and stay removed. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yellowdesk: Leading on from your edit summary[1], could you please be more specific about what information you expect to see in a family tree at this article? Do you expect to see her relationship to Henry VIII, Edward VI, Regent Northumberland and Mary I (none of which are shown) or are you only interested in finding out how she is related to Anne and Henry Belknap and the Bruyns? The main problem that I have with the section is that it presents the wrong information. Her non-notable ancestry is not what I want to know. I want to know how she is related to the people who are relevant to her story. We should be showing her famous relations not her unimportant ones. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Celia Homeford:: I desired to understand the multiple threads of royal and noble heritage of Lady Jane Grey, and this diagram shows clearly, she is doubly descended from Elizabeth Woodville, as granddaughter to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York's youngest daughter, Mary Tudor, and through the Grey family, where she also has Neville heritage. This gives clarity and context to the interest of Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk's capability of promoting his daughter Jane Grey. In addition to the reader attempting to untangle the many threads of family relations involved with the War of the Roses, it is useful and desirable to show the entire family tree, not a truncated version which hides other relations and context. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish to call attention to a potential avenue of resolution to the above conversation: provide both a geneological table as in the example of the Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick, along with an abbreviated family tree, which the Warwick article does for the Neville family. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's still far too-detailed and, as I've explained elsewhere, the chart is original research. If an article is about person A, it is insufficient to provide a citation that shows A is related to B, and then another one that shows B is related to C, and then another that shows that C is related to D, and then another that shows D is related to E, which is what's happening in ancestral tables sourced in the way that the one here is. It is 'original research by synthesis': taking two citations, one showing that A is related to B and another that B is related to C, to show that A is related to C. There should be a single citation that shows A is related to B, C, D, and E. The citations should all mention person A. If they don't, then that information doesn't belong in an article about person A. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is that synthesis? We can show that A is the child of B, who is turn the child of C: the fact that the father of my father is my grandfather is common knowledge (not to mention, the very definition of the word). By your logic, if we have a citation to show that person D is person E's spouse, we would need a second citation to prove that they were actually married, when again, the definition of the word spouse signifies that they were married in the first place. I have no opinion about the number of generations being shown, but it seems clear to me that only you and Surtsicna the only editors who feel like the 5th generation is too much. —howcheng {chat} 01:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me follow with an example of synthesis. If I have a source that says A is the child of B and a second source that says B is married to C, it is then synthesis to for me to write that A is the child of B and C, when A could be the result of a previous marriage or an extramarital affair. —howcheng {chat} 01:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Celia Homeford and I are not the only users who think 5 generations is too much. That much is clear from the RfC. More importantly, it appears that all of Jane's biographers feel that 5 generations is too much, since none of them present a 5-generation ahnentafel. Surely if scholars who are world authorities on Lady Jane Grey do not include such a chart or mention, say, Henry Belknap in any context, one can conclude that the said content may interest only a particular audience. It is rather presumptuous to think that we are including something relevant that they are missing. Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Can you point me to this RFC please? I asked Celia about it yesterday but she has not responded. I skimmed through the categories at WP:RFC but was unable to find anything related to ahnentafels, but I may have missed it. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It's at Template talk:Ahnentafel (this category). Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I was looking in the Biography and History sections, that's why I didn't see it. Anyway, per WP:BRD the {{original research}} and {{overly detailed}} templates should be removed from the Ancestry section. Whether or not 5 generations is too much is still being discussed in the RFC, but it's clear that in regards to this specific article, you and Celia have failed to convince the other editors of your position. No discussion had taken place in five months; as such, we should return to status quo ante bellum until consensus changes otherwise. —howcheng {chat} 22:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The other editors have failed to convince us that 5 generations of ancestry are habitually presented in biographies of Lady Jane Grey. So far I have not been directed to a single biography that contains such a chart. Until then, the section "may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience". Surtsicna (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

But you two are the ones trying to change what was already established. Thus, the onus is on you to change their minds. —howcheng {chat} 03:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Established by which biographers? Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You're an experienced editor, you should know how things work around here. Consensus is required to change what's already been established. The RFC may override what's been done here, so why do we need these tags in the meantime? —howcheng {chat} 15:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought I did know how things worked around here. Disputes are settled by referring to sources and guidelines, aren't they? The tag says that the section "may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience". A general biography of Lady Jane Grey that includes this information would prove that the information is not excessive or interesting only to a particular audience. No such biography has been cited, so the text in the tag still applies to that section. Is that not true? Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Her husband was "executed" ...

... not according to the historian Helen Castor on BBC Four in this year's three-part documentary, The Life and Death of Lady Jane Grey.
Eventually, he was, but not just beheaded as Jane.
He was hanged, drawn and quartered.
From 1352, this was the statutory penalty in England for men convicted of high treason.
Convicts were fastened to a hurdle or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where they were hanged almost to the point of death. Then, still alive, emasculated, disembowelled, decapitated, and quartered (chopped into four pieces).
Their remains were often displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge.
For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were instead beheaded or burned at the stake.
The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered a deplorable act demanding the most extreme form of punishment.
‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 11:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

He was beheaded. See for example the quotes of contemporary chroniclers at http://www.ladyjanegrey.info/?page_id=8281. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

So yes, that one says: "... he laide himself along, and his hedd upon the block, which was at one stroke of the axe taken from him". Was there a reason for this beheading? Was being hanged, drawn and quartered not the statutory penalty for high treason at that time? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are several. I think the standard penalty of HDQ was often remitted to beheading, especially for posh folk, as a "favour" from the king. Was anyone ever HDQ'd at the Tower? Rather a messy carry-on for a royal palace. I think Tyburn was the usual London place, at least later. Guy Fawkes was taken from the Tower to Old Palace Yard at Westminster. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Executions were usually done in public, outside the walls of the tower, at Tower Hill. Or the condemned were taken elsewhere for execution of their sentence, often Smithfield or Tyburn. Some, eg LJG and Anne Boleyn, were executed in more privacy inside the walls, at Tower Green.

If this list is accurate, it suggests William Collingbourne was HDQ at Tower Hill in 1484 for supporting Henry Tudor, and five unnamed people HDQ there in 1532 for coining. Thomas Wyatt was beheaded and quartered in 1554 but not disembowelled. Five unnamed "unruly youths" were hanged and "bowelled" in 1595, but not quartered.

Most were just beheaded, some hanged, a couple of men burned at the stake, and some recent ones executed by firing squad. And John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford, who in February 1462 was apparently taken to Tower Hill a few days after his son Aubrey was beheaded there, was bound up, disembowelled and castrated, and then thrown alive on the fire after the removed body parts. Real-life "Game of Thrones". 213.205.240.173 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I meant inside, on Tower Green. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"And John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford" We have an entire category of Category:People executed under the Yorkists that could use expansion. There is also one for executions at the Tower: Category:Executions at the Tower of London. We have a category for Category:People executed by the United Kingdom by hanging, drawing and quartering, but it is underpopulated. Could you check if there are articles missing here? Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I am confused as to why contributor Gareth Griffith-Jones says above "not according to Helen Castor" regarding "Her [Jane's] husband was executed...". In fact, Helen Castor states very clearly at time stamp 43:41 of Episode Three of "England's Forgotten Queen" that Guildford was executed before Jane. And yes, he was simply beheaded on Tower Hill. Why was he beheaded rather than suffering the more common punishment for treason of being hung, drawn, and quartered? Because it is always within the gift of the Crown to grant mercy, and it was very common practice for that mercy to be extended to members of the aristocracy and nobility. Mary in essence commuted Guildford's sentence from the traditional drawing and quartering to simple (and more merciful) beheading, just as Henry VIII allowed Anne Boleyn access to a French swordsman rather than insisting on the use of a traditional English axeman. What evidence do we have that Guildford was simply beheaded? An eyewitness account from the period states that Jane saw Guildford's corpse returned to the Tower. On those occasions when someone was hung, drawn, and quartered, they were also almost always denied Christian burial by having the severed body parts displayed from spikes above the several main gates of London, to serve as a warning to others. The fact that Guildford's body was brought back inside the Tower indicates that his body was not dismembered and the parts were not displayed; ergo, he was not hung, drawn, and quartered. Comparisons to other single executions for purposes of drawing a conclusion about Guildford's execution are not valid because each case was different. The 12th Earl of Oxford is referenced in this discussion and therefore serves as a good example of difference. De Vere was executed, quite brutally so, using the more traditional punishment for treason. Nonetheless, his second son was allowed to inherit the Oxford earldom, in sharp contrast to so many other cases of treason in which all titles of nobility and all property were forfeited as a consequence of a conviction for treason. Just as Mary extended a small bit of mercy to Guildford by allowing him a quick beheading, Edward IV showed mercy to the De Vere family by allowing that family to retain its wealth and titles, hoping thereby to convert them to his (Edward's) cause, though the gesture failed. In the interest of full disclosure, I was a fact-checker for Darlow Smithson Productions during the process of preparing the narration script for "England's Forgotten Queen," and I also make numerous "talking head" appearances throughout the episodes with my friend Helen Castor. DesertSkies120 (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

This section on "Legacy" is woefully incomplete, and the discussion related to portraiture is out of date. Any brave soul feel like updating it? Wikipedia editing policies prevent me from doing so myself, but I would be happy to assist. DesertSkies120 (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Just for fun, I would like to point out that Lady Jane Grey's date of birth is no longer thought to be in October of 1537, or even in the year 1537. An article was published in the Oxford University Press journal Notes and Queries (Volume 54, number 3, Sept 2007) in which evidence was presented indicating that she must have been born prior to June of 1537. A second article is forthcoming from the same publisher in which it is established that Jane was actually born in late 1536, fully one year earlier than commonly assumed. Let the Wiki debate begin! PhD Historian (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this could be treated the same as the Anne Boleyn date debate. Therefore, if the information is fully sourceable (and/or enough info/sourceable argument can be written about the two dates of birth), then another section or subsection could be added to the article about the DofB debate. PeterSymonds | talk 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are, I suppose, similarities to the Ives/Warnicke/et al debate over the date of birth of Anne Boleyn. But there are also some critical differences. In the Boleyn case, as I recall, even Anne's contemporaries were uncertain of her age and date of her birth. In the case of Jane Grey, her contemporaries are in agreement that she was born long before the October 1537 date that tradition assigns to her. In fact, the October date of birth was not even assigned until the nineteenth century, fully 400 years after the event. And yes, the information is fully sourceable. Both Notes and Queries articles are fully footnoted with citations to sources in the 1550s created by individuals personally associated with Jane, namely her tutors. One point is left out of the articles, however: Jane's father, Henry Grey, was in Norfolk with his father-in-law, Charles Brandon, on a military expedition to put down the Pilgrimage of Grace throughout the period between October 1536 and February 1537. If Jane had indeed been born in early October, she must necessarily have been conceived in the middle two weeks of January 1537, seemingly impossible if Henry were away from Frances until February while putting down a rebellion. PhD Historian (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see more clearly now. I was just using the Anne Boleyn debate as an example of the bad record-keeping regarding birthdates during that period of time. I think it's definately worth mentioning the date possibilities in the article–currently it states that Jane was born on an unknown date in 1537, which can be made more interesting with arguments about her actual date of birth, whether 1536 of 1537. Your insight into the movements of Henry Grey and Charles Brandon at this crucial period is also very interesting, and can be backed up by a source. The conflicting information probably won't provide us with a definate date (yet, anyway), but it will add flavour to the article. PeterSymonds | talk 20:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As you note, church-based record-keeping regarding births, baptisms, marriages and deaths in the first half of the sixteenth century bore no resemblance to the thoroughness of modern governmental bureaus of vital statistics. In fact, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, deplored the general lack of record-keeping and in 1538 issued an episcopal directive instructing all parish officials to begin keeping such records. Many of those records were later destroyed during the religiously-based conflicts of the Civil Wars of the mid seventeenth century, complicating our lack of documentary birth data prior to 1660. As a result, it is very unlikely that Jane Grey's precise date of birth will ever be known. PhD Historian (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to make this article factually correct and consistent with the latest research findings on the topic, I have taken the liberty of amending references to LJG's date of birth to show that she was certainly born much earlier than the date traditionally believed. I again refer readers to the recent article in Oxford University's Notes and Queries, cited above. That article can be read in full at On the Date of Birth of Lady Jane Grey Dudley. There is an additional article pending with the same journal, due in June 2008, that firmly establishes Jane's date of birth as after October 1536 but before February 1537. The myth that she was born in October 1537 is entirely an invention of nineteenth-century panegyrists, though I do understand that many in the general public prefer to cling to myths rather than reality. PhD Historian (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am open to persuasion, but at present it seems in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy to cover all possibilities about her date of birth. It would help if we did not have a broken link to the article mentioned. To come down firmly on one side of this divide you would have to show that there is a scholarly consensus in favour of the earlier date, not just one article. PatGallacher (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I agree that we should cover all possibilities. But scholarly consensus does not always reign in cases like this. New original scholarship may outdate existing consensus at a stroke. Dates of birth and death are often tricky to nail, and since most scholars are not interested in that sort of detail (check their notes and you see that they often cite birth dates to earlier scholars without question), errors can sometimes be copied ad infinitum, giving the impression of consensus. While this is understandable, often new books deplorably give wrong dates even when the scholarship has moved on. On the other hand, as with John Knox, new, apparently definitive research, may later be modified under scrutiny. On the birth, this article seems to have the balance right at the moment, though it is a dreadful article in many other ways. qp10qp (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many articles claiming that there is new evidence that Jane was born late 1536- spring 1537. Should this be included? Little Frog (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Little FrogLittle Frog (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You can mention this in the article as long as you can cite the sources (where you read it). Deb (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

October 12, 1537 was the birth date of King Edward VI, Jane's first cousin, once removed. A Protestant,he signed the document making the devout Anglican, Jane, his successor.

Could there have been confusion about that date and the date for Jane? By this I mean a mistake made by someone who looked at the undisputed date for Edward's birth and, knowing that they were about the same age, gave them the same birthdate.

Or, did Protestant historians want them to have been born in the same month? TomRoch17 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

User Qp10qp is absolutely correct in saying that new original scholarship may outdate longstanding consensus at a stroke. One need only look at evidence that emerged from recent digs at Pompeii and that swept aside two millennia of consensus on the date of that city's destruction. The two academic journal articles that originally questioned Jane's date of birth are readily available through a simple online search. The questions posed by TomRoch17 are addressed in those articles. Previous editors of this entry on Jane Grey have chosen to cite De Lisle and Ives when discussing the date of birth, though both of those authors actually relied on the earlier academic journal articles and cited those articles in their own footnotes/endnotes. I leave it to others to decide whether or not the original articles should be referenced or identified in some way. DesertSkies120 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done my own research and I'd have to agree. It seems more likely to be in 1536, so I'll go ahead and put "c. 1536" for now. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't publish wikipedian's own research. Both Ives and de Lisle agree that the date is more likely to be before May 1537 or about six months before Edward VI. Only Edwards says before February 1537, so it is a minority view. Per WP:PROPORTION, wikipedia doesn't select minority views when there are competing majority scholarly views. If she was born in March, April or May 1537, she would be 16 at her death. DrKay (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

'in her seventeenth year' [the words used by Florio] can mean 'after her 16th birthday'. Even Edwards acknowledges this. Up to the age of 1, babies are 'in their first year'; from 1 to 2, they are 'in their second year'; etc. Ives doesn't say she was born before February 1537: he explicitly says before May. DrKay (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. This means that Jane had to have been born in 1537, based on the April 1550 letter (about 14, so 13-14), the 29 May 1551 letter (“now 14”), and the report by Banks in March 1554 (seventeenth year of her life). Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Religion: Protestant vs Church of England/Anglican

Someone has edited the information box in the upper left of the article to indicate that Jane Grey's religion was "Church of England/Anglican." This is historically totally inaccurate. The Church of England did not come into existence until after the Elizabethan Religious Settlement of 1559-63, and it did not become known as "Anglicanism" until some decades later. At the time of Jane's death, she might best be described as "Reformist" or "Edwardian Reformist." Similarly, it is historically inaccurate to describe her as "Protestant" since that term likewise did not come into use until several decades after her death. This is an ongoing problem with Wikipedia: People who lack detailed expertise in a given field editing articles because they *think* they know something when in fact their information is not accurate. And since I do not have time to engage in editing wars, I just speak my piece (as a holder of a PhD in Tudor history and recognized expert on Jane Grey) on the Talk page and let you guys fight it out. But it is still very frustrating to see so many errors of fact in this "open editing" format. But we *do* live in an era of "alternative facts," don't we? DesertSkies120 (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

We could just leave that field blank, as we do with James I and VI. The Church of England is strongly of the opinion that it dates back to Augustine etc, and people earlier than Lady Jane are routinely described in RS as Protestant, just as architecture is described as Gothic from centuries before that term came into use. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you both that the recent change is unhelpful. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Protestant could be the best description. Church of England could have meant anything in the context of that time, and Anglican tends to refer to a specific moderate Protestant form of church which only became stabilised during the reign of Elizabeth. PatGallacher (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)