Tea at Trianon: The Myth of Lady Jane

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Myth of Lady Jane

Damian Thompson of Holy Smoke reviews a new book about Lady Jane Grey. (Thanks, papabear!) The Sisters Who Would Be Queen: Mary, Katherine, and Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Tragedy by Leanda De Lisle can be preordered HERE.

Anonymous said...: Maybe it's morbid of me, but that painting is one of my favorites in the National Gallery (London).. it's on a massive canvas and so beautifully detailed, with her white dress and all. I have a postcard sized copy of it on my wall. I guess I just like the emotional side.; March 12, 2009 at 8:51:00 AM EDT
elena maria vidal said...: It is a magnificent painting. I don't blame you at all for having a copy!; March 12, 2009 at 9:05:00 AM EDT
Enbrethiliel said...: +JMJ+

Fascinating! My introduction to the myth was the biopic starring Helena Bonham Carter as Lady Jane, and it went with the sweetly naive version, portraying Queen Mary as a pitiful, middle-aged, besotted woman willing to sacrifice anyone to please King Philip. Hardly accurate, aye?; March 12, 2009 at 9:06:00 AM EDT
elena maria vidal said...: It's the version that everyone believes, sadly. I am glad that scholars are starting to take a new look at Queen Mary.; March 12, 2009 at 9:13:00 AM EDT
Gareth Russell said...: I think the version of Mary offered in 1973's "Elizabeth R" and its prequel, "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" was not far wrong. Certainly, it did not present her as being shrill or unbalanced, rather misguided but highly determined and with great conviction.

Jane Grey is rather interestingly the subject of a full-length British academic biography later this year, by Professor Eric W. Ives OBE, who usually confines himself to study of minor courtiers or high politics in Henry VIII's time. His only biographies have been his highly acclaimed and highly political ones of Anne Boleyn, first in 1986 and then again in 2004.

Apparently he seeks to argue that Jane had such a gifted and tenacious intellect that presenting her as naive is a fatally flawed analysis, which totally misses the point of her life and its ultimate tragedy. I think perhaps the greatest tragedy of her life was the mixture of casual cruelty then indifference with which her parents treated her.

I'm unsure what to think of Jane, or Mary, myself. I can't help but feel that there have been spirited attempts to whitewash both of them and, certainly in Mary's case, denigrate beyond reason as well.; March 12, 2009 at 2:15:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: One hardly knows what versions of history to believe. Discerning which accounts are accurate is difficult. "There are two sides to every story" doesn't seem to hold with history; it seems to be better said "there are many sides to every story" - each with its own agenda - good or evil.

EMV, in your research, how do you discern which sources are reliable? What criteria do you use?; March 12, 2009 at 4:28:00 PM EDT
elena maria vidal said...: "Apparently he seeks to argue that Jane had such a gifted and tenacious intellect that presenting her as naive is a fatally flawed analysis, which totally misses the point of her life and its ultimate tragedy. I think perhaps the greatest tragedy of her life was the mixture of casual cruelty then indifference with which her parents treated her."

Gareth, I agree.

Yes, Margaret, it is tricky and that why history is a discipline which some people devote their lives to studying. It is important to read both sides of the story, especially the original sources, the first hand accounts. Even with first hand accounts, it is necessary to be aware of the motivations and possible slant of the persons recording the events.; March 12, 2009 at 6:14:00 PM EDT
Stephanie A. Mann said...: Thank you for the advance notice on this book. It seems to be part of the trend of re-evaluations of the reign of Mary I (upcoming volume by Eamon Duffy, recent biographies by Linda Porter, etc.). I've linked your post and the Telegraph review on my website, http://www.supremacyandsurvival.com
The wave of revisiionist history certainly needs to continue and I look forward to it!; March 12, 2009 at 7:40:00 PM EDT
elena maria vidal said...: Stephanie, your book looks great! Let me know if you want me to review it!; March 12, 2009 at 7:49:00 PM EDT
tubbs said...: Yes we all love revisionist History, especially when we tend to agree with the revised version. Let's be honest with ourselves; we've seen some far-out, agenda-rooted revisionism that has been a biased heap of bull'oney. Hopefully, over the years, we learn to read between the lines, and consider the most important fact: THE VICTOR WRITES HISTORY!
For example we've always been taught that the English reformation was a time of bloody conflict and turmoil, but that without that turmoil, History would never have had the glorious figures of the English Renaissance.
They did NOT tell us that Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Marlowe, Tallis, Byrd, Inigo Jones, and countless other lights of that era were persecuted RCs!!! In fact, the persecution of RCs is rarely mentioned in any Western Civ. class.
God bless Eamon Duffy. His source-documented presentation of a religious transformation that was forced on the people from the top down goes directly against the whiggish junk-istory we've been force-fed for so may centuries.; March 13, 2009 at 9:58:00 AM EDT
Stephanie A. Mann said...: Yes, Elena, I would appreciate your review! Let me know how to handle.

I agree tubbs, that the persecution of Catholics, not to mention discrimination against Catholics in England is not well known. That's why I wrote "Supremacy and Survival: How Catholics Endured the English Reformation"!; March 13, 2009 at 11:51:00 AM EDT
Gareth Russell said...: The persecution of Catholics was a truly hideous time in England's history. However, if I might permit a tiny (perhaps geekish and irksome) correction to a previous comment? (I feel hideously dorkish doing this, but the historian in me is crying out.) Shakespeare's Catholicism is by no means proved, as with so much of Shakespearian scholarship, it's just a theory - although there are certainly some very intriguing passages in "Hamlet," which support your theory! However, Christopher Marlowe was not a Catholic. He claimed to be one at various points, but it seems to have been dissimulation. He worked as a spy for Lord Burleigh and it is far more likely that he was in fact an atheist, and a particularly militant one. Several of his comments concerning Christ, the Blessed Virgin, Saints Mary and Martha of Bethany and Saint John the Evangelist attest to this, as does a comment from one Richard Chomley, who wrote, "Marlowe is able to show more sound reasons from atheism than any divine in England is able to give to prove divinity and that Marlowe told him that he hath read the atheist lecture to Sir Walter Raleigh and others."

I won't repeat Marlowe's comments about the above Biblical figures, because in my opinion they frankly aren't worth repeating.

Miss Mann, I am certainly going to buy your book after reading about it here. I enjoyed Professor Duffy's work immensely and have found the whole period fascinating if, at times, grotesque. I recently read a few very interesting articles on the beginning of the Reformation amongst the upper-classes, including ‘Anne Boleyn and the Entente-Évangelique’ by Eric Ives, Richard Hoyle’s ‘The origins of the dissolution of the monasteries’ and Diarmaid MacCulloch’s biography of Thomas Cranmer. We certainly haven't had the "right" picture of what happened in the 1520's and early 1530's for a very long time. I can't wait to read your book on the Reformation's impact on practising English Catholics and look forward to it immensely.; March 13, 2009 at 1:44:00 PM EDT
elena maria vidal said...: Thank you, Gareth, that is fascinating, as always.

Stephanie, I have emailed you about getting a review copy of your book, which I would really love to read!; March 13, 2009 at 1:54:00 PM EDT
Stephanie A. Mann said...: Gareth, re: Shakespeare, I do think we have to be careful about placing him in the recusant Catholic group. I think his position reflects the difficulties the people of England faced as their government legislated their religious practice, doctrine, and worship. There could certainly be some hints that Shakespeare's plays possibly reflect some sympathies with Catholic practice, doctrine, and worship, but I wouldn't so far as to say that he was a recusant Catholic or that his plays contained codes for Catholics. Thank you for your interest in "Supremacy and Survival"; I hope you enjoy it.

And, Elena, thanks for the email. I'll take care of it this weekend.; March 13, 2009 at 2:33:00 PM EDT
elena maria vidal said...: Thanks, Stephanie!; March 13, 2009 at 2:39:00 PM EDT
tubbs said...: Marlowe was definitely an interesting(?) character, and a shady one at that--- A blasphemous atheist and reputedly a spy against Catholics. yet he was listed as an RC at the same time.
True, Shakespeare's religious affiliation as an RC should have been more blatant -- but two things convince me that he was an RC: (a)his father's letter of testimony that was found in his house (in the nineteenth century?) but later lost, and (b) his parish church vicar listing that Shakespeare "died a papist" in the church records.; March 13, 2009 at 5:16:00 PM EDT
Stephanie A. Mann said...: I'm sorry, tubbs, but the comment about his dying a Papist was made by Richard Davies of Corpus Christi College, the Vicar of Saperton, Gloucestershire in a biography/diary of another churchman in 1703, not in the contemporary church records (1616). Shakespeare's family was almost certainly Catholic, or at least did not attend Church of England services (both his father and his daughter, Susanna were fined for recusancy), and Shakespeare might have always been sympathetic to Catholicism, and he might have returned to his family's faith at his death, and we can certainly pray that he did, but I would still shy away from declaring he was a Catholic, for the sake of historical accuracy.; March 14, 2009 at 9:51:00 AM EDT
tubbs said...: to Stephanie, thank you for that info.

I also look forward to reading your book.; March 14, 2009 at 8:01:00 PM EDT
Tamise said...: If anyone has any questions for Leanda de Lisle, she will be answering them at my blog.

You can submit your questions here.

http://ladyjanegreyref.livejournal.com/25617.html

Thanks!; April 5, 2009 at 8:18:00 AM EDT