Geneology questions -- is Lady Jane in your family tree?greenspun.com : LUSENET : lady jane grey : One Thread
Do you believe, or have you been told, that Lady Jane is in your family tree?
-- Jennifer (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 04, 2000
I have been told Lady Jane Grey was in my family tree by a cousin, think she may have come in on the Cheatwood ( Chitwood ) SIDE OF MY FAMILY, I have no proof are records, can you help?
-- JERRY D, DAVIS (POPPA D3@aol.com), July 12, 2000.
Yes - Jane Grey is in my family tree - she would be a first cousin to me, separated by 15 generations give or take. It is weird too, because there is a portrait of her in which we are spitting images of each other. Everyone who sees it and then looks atme gets the heebie jeebies.
-- Nicole Elizabeth Rosenberger (email@example.com), September 13, 2000.
In my family geneology my great-great grandparents were Benjamin and Virgie Esther Myers Grey. It has been proven that I am directly related to Lady Jane Grey. Please correspond with any information regarding this.
Denise Hutson Georgia, USA
-- Denise Renee Hutson (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 25, 2000.
Nicole, I hate to be a sponge but, take it from me there is no confirmed portrait of Lady Jane in the world. Wish there was, I have been researching my life away for my new novel. I have also been unable to find any trace of her being in any family tree. But I would really love to be proved wrong! Peter.
-- Peter Carroll (email@example.com), October 03, 2000.
I'm finding a lot of information regarding a discrepancy in portrait identity. There was a portrait that was originally thought to be Jane but was later believed to be Katherine Parr? Something about the brooch worn was thought to be the distinction. Is there any more word on this?
-- Kitsa (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 17, 2000.
Actually Kitsa, the brooch thing has much speculation around it because Lady Jane once was under the care of Katherine Parr, and Katherine was known to be very generous. So, Katherine could have easily let Lady Jane borrow her jewels in the painting.
-- April (email@example.com), March 23, 2001.
....the only problem being that this would make Jane appr 12-13 years at the time the portrait was painted, which seems a little bit too young.....
-- Katarina Lindgren (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 26, 2001.