Last year I heard that a British MP was pushing for Lady Jane to be given an official pardon, excusing her from any part in the attempt to take the crown from Mary I. Has anyone else heard of such a move?

-- Jennifer (mail@janegrey.com), July 04, 2000

Answers

This is the first I have heard of this. There is some dispute about the exact meaning of a royal pardon (see the judge's summing up in Regina v. Waddell). In general I do not approve of trying to re-open these sorts of cases, since it could apply to a host of historical figures e.g. Anne Boleyn, William Wallace. A case could be made for pardoning her purely on the grounds of her age since we stopped executing 16-year-olds a long time ago in Britain, but do we then pardon everyone under the age of 18 who was ever executed?

-- Campbell McGregor (campannexe@yahoo.co.uk), August 28, 2000.

It wouuld'nt be about her age, its a question of wether or not she planed to take the throne from Mary. As far as most of the evidence states she never wanted to be queen anyway. It was her father and father-in-law's lust for power that got her head chopped off. I think she should be pardoned!

-- Chez (chez27@hotmail.com), May 01, 2001.

I think Jane should be pardoned. As evidence shows, Jane was unwilling to take the crown and, although I am sure she did not relish the thought of a catholic queen, she knew Mary was the rightful heir to the throne. I believe Mary herself would have eventually released Jane and maybe Guildford had it not been for Prince Phillip.... or am I believing too much of the film!? My view is that Jane was only executed to take away any future threat to Mary's crown. Jane herself was no actual threat but her supporters were. Therefore, as none of this was Jane's fault a pardon seems to be the only way to exonerate her.

-- Jeni Machin (jeni.machin@consignia.com), June 11, 2001.