#empressmatilda

  Ok, so, I am ready as ever to go through this rant. I graduated with a Bachelor's in European Studies, so I have studied a lot of the history and culture of Europe, I have read a lot about the Tudor dynasty, and recently watched a video that showed England since before William the Conqueror. It showed the kings and the lands they controlled. The video didn't include Matilda to my disappointment, but it did include Jane. And let me tell you- I have OPINIONS. The video was nice, so I don’t want to put it on blast or anything. It is just one of those things that I feel I have a valid opinion on and like to nit-pick because HISTORY IS MY JAM.

  And, sorry if I disappoint, but I don't think Jane should be considered an actual queen of England.

  It isn't because she was only "queen" for 9 or so days or because she didn't have a coronation. That doesn't grasp the whole story or clearly define how much she lacked legitimacy as a queen. My reasons are different than those, and really aren't original. A lot of the explanation is common knowledge to many, but for some reason the Lady Jane situation is still a debate.

  But anyway, to understand the situation we have to understand the situation England had concerning its government. England has had a very long history concerning the monarch and placing checks on their power. The Tudors were still very much absolute monarchs, but the Magna Carta of 1215 made the monarch bound to the laws of the land, and they could no longer make and take away laws at will.

  So, skip forward to Henry VIII. Everyone knows about him, how he had 6 wives, and how he REALLY REALLY wanted a son. With our 20/20 vision, we make fun of him because, HELLO, ELIZABETH I!!! But he had a valid reason for his concerns (his actions were awful- just his concerns over the succession were valid), but more on why that is in a little bit.

  Well, during Henry’s time, laws and taxes were decided by Parliament. Monarchs back then still had MASSIVE power over Parliament, so it still isn’t anything like what the UK has today but Henry could not just make the laws by himself.

  With the Parliament, he created 3 different Acts of Succession, the last of these being in 1543. In this last one, he put into place the line of succession for when he was gone. This act placed Mary and Elizabeth in line after their brother (if he didn’t produce an heir, of course). Henry was smart, and added the grandchildren of his younger sister onto the line after Elizabeth. This was supposed to ensure that someone would be in line if none of his children had children of their own. The ones after Elizabeth were the Grey sisters- Lady Jane Grey being the oldest of the sisters. Funnily enough, Henry did not legitimize his daughters when he had this law put through. He did not want to legitimize those marriages, I guess. In a way it would be admitting he was wrong before. Mary would legitimize herself through Parliament, and Elizabeth would let sleeping dogs lie.

  Well, when Edward VI became king, he seriously pushed for Protestant reform. Henry VIII was famous for the split with Rome, but he was still a Catholic in his private life. He was not as into church reform and new ideas as his son was. Edward was as strongly Protestant as Mary was Catholic. And that was a problem for Edward. Now, many believe that Edward and Elizabeth were not very close to Mary, but after the death of Elizabeth’s mother, Mary and Elizabeth grew very close, and both sisters were close to their brother. However, Mary would not convert to Protestantism and this infuriated Edward. He may have still had good relations with Mary at some level, but they clashed A LOT over the fact that she would not submit to him as king to follow what he believed to be the “true religion.”

  Now, Edward wasn’t the healthiest person. At some point, he and his moochers realized he was going to die. So, to keep the country’s progress towards Protestantism (and his officials wanted to keep the power and wealth they gained and drained from the poor monarch), Edward VI made a will booting both Mary and Elizabeth off the line of succession. Now, why would he boot off Elizabeth? Elizabeth was seen as a good, Protestant princess. She would have been a great successor! NOPE, Edward was not for women rulers. Actually, many Protestants were more against women rulers than their Catholic counterparts. In 1558, John Knox, a Protestant minister in Scotland that would later debate heatedly with Mary, Queen of Scots, wrote against the idea that women could rule, citing all the usual sexist ideas of the time.

  So, then, why Jane? Jane is a woman. Why was she picked? Well, his will at first specified her (and her sisters’) MALE HEIRS as his heir. So, her and her younger sister were married and they hoped for a male offspring, but time was not on Edward’s side. Once he realized he could not wait for the Grey sisters to have children, he fixed his will to say that Jane Grey AND her male heirs were next in line. So, why not just go back to Elizabeth? Why still go for Jane? He was SUPER close to Elizabeth and Elizabeth was SUPER Protestant.

  Even with her Protestantism, it was still a no. The main reason he used was not just his personal belief against women rulers, but also the fact that both were illegitimate. THAT was what knocked Elizabeth from the spot and placed Jane there instead, and it probably saved Elizabeth’s life. Well, remember when I explained the Magna Carta and how laws worked at this point? Edward did not have time to wait for a Parliament to ratify his will as a law. So, the law of the land said one thing, and the monarch said another. But the monarch was bound to the laws of the land…

  Once Edward VI died, the officials proclaimed Jane as queen, and Mary was TICKED. Mary had faced a lot of horrible treatment in her life, but THIS? This she would not let happen, and the people weren’t having it either. We think of Henry as horrible today, but the people LOVED HIM. The people also knew who he put in the line of succession, and they wanted his daughter as it was her rightful place. So, this is where an even bigger player than laws and the Magna Carta comes into play- BIG ARMY DIPLOMACY. No matter what, the person with the bigger army gets the crown. That is how it is no matter where you look, and Mary had it. She had the law on her side, and she had the military/people with her. Edward’s officials realized this, and turned on Jane. Her FATHER was the one who arrested her.

  Now, many think Mary immediately executed her, but this isn’t the case. Mary understood that she was being used by others, and had her imprisoned in stately rooms in the Tower. It was not until the next year after revolt in Jane’s name that Mary had her executed. (Still not cool, but I wanna share the facts.)

  Anyway, with all of this, Jane had no legal legitimacy to her claim. She was part of a coup, with the Protestant officials trying to grab power with a legally illegitimate queen. If she had the force, then she would have been able to succeed, she would have been able to enforce her legitimacy, but, ALAS. She will still go down in history as the “9 day queen” (depending on how you count), and she is a fascinating historical figure. She is also a victim, for she was used and then betrayed in order to help men in their pursuit for power. She, Anne Bolyn, Mary Bolyn, and many other women were sacrificed for the benefit of their male relatives. So, I don’t disagree with her being on any list for personal reasons. She is fascinating.

  But, what about Matilda? Didn’t I say something about Matilda? Well, when I saw that she wasn’t included in the list I was sad, but I wasn’t scoffing until I saw Jane. (Again, this was a nice video, and this is just me and my personal nick-picking.)

  I would say Matilda has a better claim as the first queen of England, but that is still...messy. And it is also why Henry VIII wanted a son SO badly. See, when Matilda’s brother died, she was the only legitimate child left from her father (or only child all together, either way). Her father, Henry I, made his barons and other officials swear loyalty to her as the next monarch, but, well, that wasn’t a real game plan for them. (There is also a story that a fight between daughter and father made Henry I relieve them of this promise, but who knows). And the reason they didn’t want her as monarch was because- WAIT FOR IT- SEXISM. YAY!

(Wait, no-)

  There was also no law in place to assure her legitimacy, and England’s line of succession was messy because it was really a free-for-all amongst the king’s children, with the eldest son having the largest advantage. Women were not really seen as monarchy types back then. So, one of her cousins, Stephan, was crowned as king while she was in France, and she was NOT HAVING IT.

  In 1139, she went from France to England to get the throne back. She even had Stephan captured at one point, and was going to be crowned in Westminster. However, she lost the will of the people and the aristocracy with her attitude she gained as Empress of the Holy Roman Empire. They wanted things from her, she would not give them. She was kicked out by the London crowds, and later she traded Stephan for an ally Stephan’s allies captured (btw, Stephan’s wife, also named Matilda, was pretty awesome too).

  So, it seems, according to this, Stephan had the BIG ARMY DIPLOMACY, even tho Matilda was supposed to be the monarch instead. So, Stephan wins! Ok, that question has been answered-

Wait.

But.

For years the “Lady of the English” (the official title she was given before she was to be officially crowned) controlled part of England. She controlled the south-west of England while Stephan held the south-east and midlands. So… she was KINDA queen of at least an area for about 7 years? If she had control over it would she technically be the queen? Her and her husband DID take control over Normandy, tho that had some struggles still (which was ruled by England at the time).

  In 1148, with Stephan and Matilda at a stalemate, Matilda left for Normandy. Her son, Henry, stayed in England in her place. He was starting to play a more and more increasing role in the conflict in the 1140s. Stephan, without an heir of his own, named Henry as heir.

  Henry recognized Stephan as king, became his adopted son, and was Henry II after Stephan died. Matilda held control over Normandy with trouble. She had been turning more attention away from England and more towards governing Normandy, so really she was cool with all of this. Henry II’s accession also helped calm down the craziness in Normandy for his mom to have an easier time. She ruled there in her son’s name, her son and her had charters issued in both of their names, and Henry asked his mom for advice a lot. She was a really cool lady who helped keep political peace within the government.

  So...was she queen of the small part of England for 7 years? She was sure able to get her son on the throne. I mean, she didn’t have a coronation, but Edward VIII wasn’t taken off the list of kings and he didn’t either. Really, a coronation is more of an event and spectacle. Elizabeth I was considered queen before her coronation. It is more of a symbolic thing. But, at the end of the day, these questions will be argued and debated. And this huge mess with Matilda and Stephan (it was really bad) scared Henry VIII, the son of Henry VII, the guy who ended the War of the Roses- another fight between families for the crown. Henry VIII’s worries and concerning made a LOT of sense in his time, and he was proven right with his son being a jerk and the major Succession Question during Elizabeth I’s life. So, concerns legit without 2020 vision, but actions were VERY messed up.

  My conclusion is that, if someone wants to include Jane in the list of kings and queens of England, then they have to include Matilda. If they include Matilda, they don’t really have to include Jane. Matilda has a better claim as queen than Jane does, even if it is decided to be wrong.