4
4
0
Studying history is an adventure, one that has captivated me since I was very young. Sharing a birthday with George Washington (No! Not the same year) I was treated to birthday parties including cakes and games that reflected the mythology surrounding Washington (especially the episode with the cherry tree). Separating fact from fiction became a game that I have played ever since. There are many such characters, such as Lady Jane Grey, who offer such challenges
Lady Jane Grey: why do we want to believe the myth?
Posted from historyextra.comPosted in these groups: 
World History
World History
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Good article, and an even better subject-Mind terribly if I serve as the contrarian Jack?
"Innocence" is a difficult word because when applied too liberally, it's often put in place of "justified". While I greatly doubt Jane was led from her "tapestries" to the throne by a veritable mob of manipulative family members... I also think she acted in complete accordance with principles and logic as she knew them. Let's not forget that the Reformation (from a philosophical point of view) allowed for the Enlightenment, and Mary was the avenging angel of the "old way". I may go even further and suggest that more than a few of "Bloody Mary's" failings as a head of state and human being get glossed-over in an effort (not too thinly veiled within the article) to convert her into a heroine as the (arguable) first "real" queen of England acting as head of state.
It's so hard to accurately judge the acts of people who regarded capital punishment so casually, but one would hope that even in the 16th Century, lopping the head of a sixteen year old for daring to challenge your claim to the throne is a bit despotic. That's likely why (to answer the article's question) "we" choose to follow the "myth". It isn't because the romanticized Jane serves as the perfect Victorian (translated into Progressive speak as- misogynist) heroine, tragically dying mid-swoon... but rather because in a long line of Tudor roses whose stems were cut by the Blade of State, her death is the most difficult to rectify in our minds. Anne Boleyn stole another woman's man, and Kat Howard "may" have been sleeping around on the aging Henry VIII. While our modern sensibilities cringe at all... we weep for the young woman who apparently loved her family, her country, and her faith...and died for doing little more than being loyal to all three.
My sense is that the author's point here is a bit lost in the historical facts. Just because our detailed view of Jane is potentially marred by inaccuracies, doesn't mean that there's some great "revelation" to be drawn about her either. Would it change much is she was thirty-eight and overweight with a mole? Not really. If she had ordered Mary's death, or directly tried to usurp the throne against Edward's orders... maybe then we'd be on to something. For me, she serves as a tragic heroine and her death a cautionary tale.
"Innocence" is a difficult word because when applied too liberally, it's often put in place of "justified". While I greatly doubt Jane was led from her "tapestries" to the throne by a veritable mob of manipulative family members... I also think she acted in complete accordance with principles and logic as she knew them. Let's not forget that the Reformation (from a philosophical point of view) allowed for the Enlightenment, and Mary was the avenging angel of the "old way". I may go even further and suggest that more than a few of "Bloody Mary's" failings as a head of state and human being get glossed-over in an effort (not too thinly veiled within the article) to convert her into a heroine as the (arguable) first "real" queen of England acting as head of state.
It's so hard to accurately judge the acts of people who regarded capital punishment so casually, but one would hope that even in the 16th Century, lopping the head of a sixteen year old for daring to challenge your claim to the throne is a bit despotic. That's likely why (to answer the article's question) "we" choose to follow the "myth". It isn't because the romanticized Jane serves as the perfect Victorian (translated into Progressive speak as- misogynist) heroine, tragically dying mid-swoon... but rather because in a long line of Tudor roses whose stems were cut by the Blade of State, her death is the most difficult to rectify in our minds. Anne Boleyn stole another woman's man, and Kat Howard "may" have been sleeping around on the aging Henry VIII. While our modern sensibilities cringe at all... we weep for the young woman who apparently loved her family, her country, and her faith...and died for doing little more than being loyal to all three.
My sense is that the author's point here is a bit lost in the historical facts. Just because our detailed view of Jane is potentially marred by inaccuracies, doesn't mean that there's some great "revelation" to be drawn about her either. Would it change much is she was thirty-eight and overweight with a mole? Not really. If she had ordered Mary's death, or directly tried to usurp the throne against Edward's orders... maybe then we'd be on to something. For me, she serves as a tragic heroine and her death a cautionary tale.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google