Talk:Lady Jane Grey

message: I keep amending the article to reflect the fact that the British Royal Family cite Jane Grey as Queen but it keeps getting changed back. Jane Grey is NOT a disputed Queen if the Royal Family specifically acknowledge her as Queen. Please see article below:
https://www.royal.uk/lady-jane-grey
:Leaving the Queen/No Queen question aside, I wonder why you think the royal family's website operator's opinion should be dispositive.  Surely it's historians and not royals who can present informed opinions on the subject. - Nunh-huh 22:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The website you've linked to says 'Lady Jane Grey' not 'Jane of England'. The article should do as the citations do, not make up new names. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Although Queen Jane's reign was short, she was legally Queen of England, France (though not in practice) and Ireland, Jane was proclaimed Queen and was made so by Edward VI letters patent and was (briefly) recognised by the privy council. I say her title should be "Jane, Queen of England" WiltedXXVI (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, is her proclamation not enough (note that the following is the actual spelling in the proclamation, I can spell): "Jane, by the Grace of God Quene of England, Fraunce and Ireland, defendor of the faith" WiltedXXVI (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Article titles follow WP:COMMONNAME. Amazingly enough, this has been discussed and rejected before - see here for the last time. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia will always bow to "facts determined by ballot and popular opinion" rather than taking the bold step of stating actual fact. The continuing insistence even far beyond Wikipedia on referring to Jane Grey Dudley as "Lady Jane" is sadly prompted by the former, not the latter.DesertSkies120 (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Jane of England on British Royal Family website

message: This is in relation to the addition on 2 August 2023 by BillClinternet of a photograph of a portrait with a caption indicating that the image is "an illustration of Lady Jane Grey in her later years, most likely before her death c.1550-c-1553." There are several issues with this addition. First and most importantly, the image does not depict Jane Grey. Instead, it depicts either Katherine Grey Seymour or Elizabeth I and dates to no earlier than 1558. See J. Stephan Edwards, A Queen of a New Invention: Portraits of Lady Jane Grey Dudley, England's Nine Days Queen (2015), 146-176. Like so many of the portraits said to depict Jane Grey, the specific one in the image (the Audley End Portrait) is a much later copy of a pre-existing portrait of another person and that has been relabeled to "become" Jane Grey in the absence of an authentic portrait of her. The image presented, the Audley End Portrait, was created in the 18th century, more than 150 years after Jane's death in 1553. The original from which the Audley End Portrait was copied dates to no earlier than 1602, half a century after Jane died. Second, the caption needs editing if the image is to remain in place. As written, the phrase "most likely before her death c.1550-c.1553," suggests that Jane Grey died sometime between 1550 and 1553! And the caption as a whole, as written with the errors of punctuation, suggests that the image depicts Jane before her death rather than depicting after her death ("most likely before her death"). The more factually and grammatically correct caption might be "An 18th century copy of an early-17th century image falsely said to depict Jane Grey, who died in 1554." But in order to avoid confusing and misleading the public with false information, it would be best simply to delete the image and its caption.DesertSkies120 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed - I like "in her later years"! Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane Grey illustrated before her death 

message: In my opinion, the "Ives 2009" source should be consolidated into one single reference. It unnecessarily takes up a lot of the reference list. Nophunintended0 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's better to keep the page numbers as it improves verifiability. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting to remove the page numbers from the citations, I'm suggesting collecting all the different instances in which the "Ives 2009" source is used into one single reference, so it's easier to refer to. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have that all in one place? Why should each individual page be listed separately? Nophunintended0 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more difficult to refer to the book for verifiability if the page numbers are all mashed up together. It's better to give a specific page for each claim in the article so when we check verifiability we only have to go to that page instead of having to read the entire book. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

text: May I just suggest that anyone wanting to edit the formatting of the footnotes please first do some background reading in reliable guides on the purpose and formatting of those notes? The format you suggest is entirely contradictory to both the form and the function of end- and footnotes. Adopting the suggestion would significantly damage both the functionality and the credibility of Wikipedia itself. DesertSkies120 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ives 2009 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edward VI's "Will"