Nine Days a Queen (1936) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
An Unforgotten, Tragic Footnote
theowinthrop8 June 2005
The tragedy of the week and a half reign of "Queen" Jane Grey Tudor is one of the bizarre briefly successful coups that collapsed. Lady Jane Grey was a blood cousin of King Edward VI, and his two half sisters, Princess Mary and Princess Elizabeth. Edward VI is recalled today, if at all, for the novel by Mark Twain called THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER, as the son of Henry VIII who trades places with the poor street boy Tom Canty. That was a piece of creative fiction, but it shows how relatively unimportant Edward VI really was because he died after a six year reign (1547 - 1553) in which he was never an adult but under a series of grown-up advisers called protectors. The first one was his uncle Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset. Somerset's attempt to carry out the religious policies of his late brother-in-law King Henry VIII came apart due to the opposition of other powerful nobles, and the antics of his ambitious and stupid brother Lord Admiral Thomas Seymour. Thomas Seymour had married King Henry's last queen, Catherine Parr, and when she died, he attempted to carry off and marry the Princess Elizabeth. He was arrested and executed for treason (this is the story in the Steward Granger film YOUNG BESS). It seriously compromised Edward Seymour, who was overthrown, tried for treason, and executed as well. The man who gained by all this was Edward Dudley, Duke of Warwick (Cedric Hardwicke in the film TUDOR ROSE), who was made Duke of Northumberland by King Edward VI, and was Lord Protector when Edward was dying.

Northumberland was too ambitious, as Thomas Seymour had been. Seymour hoped, by marrying Princess Elizabeth, to have her replace King Edward when he died, and he would be the real power behind Elizabeth's throne. As it was, Seymour actions were to bring Elizabeth under a cloud of unjust suspicion for awhile (there is no evidence that she had agreed to this harebrained scheme). But Northumberland considered the situation similarly to Tom Seymour. He did not want to see Princess Mary, the oldest of the two half sisters (and a Catholic) succeed Edward. But he thought Elizabeth (already showing her brains and independence) unmanageable. Instead, he turned to their cousin Lady Jane Grey. Northumberland figured that Lady Jane would be a perfect match for his son Guilford.

So Northumberland plotted two steps. First, he arranged Lady Jane and Guildford be married. Then he arranged that the dying Edward be pressured into altering the line of succession, disinheriting both his half-sisters, and putting his cousin on the throne. It was not too difficult to manipulate the poor dying boy, but Northumberland failed to realize that unless he could fully count on a sizable number of nobles accepting this weird dynastic switch it would be doomed.

That was the failure of the scheme. Although Edward's death was followed by the announcement of the reign of Queen Jane, the public did not buy it. Lady Jane was known from being a court personage, but she was a non-entity for all that. Both Mary and Elizabeth were far better known, moreover they were the children of King Henry VIII (not of one of his sisters). As for the nobles, they had not liked Tom Seymour's scheme with Elizabeth, so why should they like Northumberland's scheme with Jane and Guildford? The Protestant nobles and government officials, like William Cecil, favored the Protestant Elizabeth. The Catholic nobles and even some Protestant clergy (like Stephen Gardiner) favored Mary. All Northumberland's stupid plan did was to unite the two rival Princesses factions in a determination to remove a usurper.

It's amazing she lasted nine days. One can only conclude that due to communication problems in 1553, and a general sense of amazement at the speed of this coup, nobody acted quickly at first. But once they got over it the two factions united and poor Lady Jane was removed to the Tower of London. Interestingly enough she had barely known young Guilford, but now they got to know each other - and found they actually liked, even loved each other. One of the supreme tragedies of this story is that Jane Grey and Guilford Dudley might, had they been left alone by Northumberland, have found happiness together as a married couple at the court. Instead, within a year, Northumberland, Guilford, and finally Jane all were beheaded.

The film is a short one (the film made in the 1990s with Helen Bonham Carter is longer and more detailed), but it gets the main points of the tragedy. Ms Pilbeam was a sweet, charming young lady, and gave a memorable performance. So did a youngish John Mills, really just getting his great career underway. As Northumberland Cedric Hardwicke is properly unscrupulous, and (in one fictional scene) shows his real character to the dying Edward VI by treating that monarch, when alone, with the contempt of a grown man for a sickly youth. Felix Aylmer (as Somerset) has one moment, when he realizes how his idiot brother's actions with Elizabeth have compromised and destroyed them both.

One final irony. After she finally ascended the throne in 1558, Elizabeth noticed a young man in court named Robin or Robert Dudley. He was the younger brother of Guilford, and he was married to a young woman named Amy Robsart. Elizabeth and Robert became very close - how close is still a question historians debate. They usually conclude that under normal circumstances Elizabeth would have married Robert. However, Amy Robsart died in 1560 under peculiar circumstances (she fell down a staircase when alone in the Dudley mansion at Kenelworth). Robert was now free to marry. Elizabeth rejected his availability. She kept him close to her at court as an important adviser, but never went beyond that. She couldn't trust him, not only because of what happened to poor Amy, but because of his family's involvement with poor Jane.
29 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"And you won't let me have that gun"
hwg1957-102-26570423 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
A solid version of the story of Lady Jane Grey who was on the English throne for nine days before her capture and execution, still in her teens. It gives a good account of the factions vying for power after the deaths of Henry VIII and Edward VI his son, and how Jane Grey got entangled with them.

The film has a powerhouse cast including Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Felix Aylmer, Martita Hunt and Dame Sybil Thorndike. Young Nova Pilbeam as Jane holds her own very well in such illustrious company. There are some fine scenes and the public execution of Jane is done excellently, moving and strangely hopeful. When the axeman asks for Jane's pardon it is a deeply poignant moment. I don't usually cry while watching a film.....
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Just political pawns
bkoganbing31 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
You'll find a lot of this story told more accurately in the films Young Bess and Lady Jane. But Nine Days A Queen has a certain charm to it, capturing the era of Tudor politics, religion, and romance. You'll find all three in this film, not necessarily in that order.

A dying Henry VIII names his son Edward to be the new King of England, the last Edward V was a child who only reigned 2 months and was murdered with his younger brother in the Tower Of London by his uncle who became the infamous Richard III. Edward VI managed to get 7 years in for a reign as a minor king. The boy who Mark Twain made the subject of his novel The Prince And The Pauper had a most unhappy reign as the regency which ruled in his name became just a struggle for power between factions. That is amply demonstrated in Nine Days A Queen. As for Edward VI he is played here by Desmond Tester, a sickly lad who by age and illness is unable to enforce his will.

The king's mother was Jane Seymour and her two brothers struggled for the regency and are played here by Felix Aylmer and Leslie Perrins. Waiting in the wings however is Cedric Hardwicke as the Earl Of Warwick who has some real ambitious plans. Let the two Seymours kill themselves off and he'll take the regency himself. But the tubercular Edward VI makes him regent and then dies.

Here religion comes to play. The new Anglican church was formed by Henry VIII and was by no means secure. Next in line was sister Mary Tudor so Warwick passes her by and pledges his fealty to Lady Jane Grey who was descended from Henry VIII's sister. Neva Pilbeam is Lady Jane and she is a learned and pious young woman and Protestant. Catholic Mary Tudor is deposed, but not for long.

Part of Warwick's plans was to marry the presumptive Queen to one of his sons Guilford Dudley. Young John Mills got his first real notice in the cinema as young Guilford. According to legend the two actually did fall in love. It was Jane's first, but Guilford who wasn't exactly an innocent when he met her supposedly vowed to give up his hedonistic ways, Jane so influenced him.

That is the charm this story holds, the young people really in love were just political pawns and as Mary Tudor who is played here by Gwen Ffrangcon Davies says she feels her more innocent than the rest around her. Yet she must die because ex-monarchs do make a convenient rallying point for rebels.

Mills and Pilbeam were marvelous as a Romeo and Juliet like pair. Had Master Will Shakespeare not been a Tudor scribe he might well have written a wonderful play about them as the central characters. Hardwicke was icy and overbearing the way Warwick has come down in history to us. And Desmond Tester is so pitiable as the young boy King Edward VI. One wonders if he had reached his majority in good health how history might have been different.

Nine Days A Queen isn't history, but wonderful historical romance.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
First film to dramatise the story of Lady Jane Grey
chrisart75 September 2008
This film is a misfire, but it was hard to put my finger on why, at first. The acting is superb, led by Sir Cedric Hardwicke as the Duke of Northumberland, Nova Pilbeam as Jane Grey, a young John Mills as Guilford Dudley, and fine character actors such as Miles Malleson and John Laurie, to name but a few. The camera work and particularly the lighting make for many a striking composition. The music, however, though of adequate period flavour, is what pulls down all of the proceedings. It is simply too dull, too slow, and entirely out of sync with the tone of many scenes. A score by someone of the calibre of, say, Miklos Rozsa would have worked wonders with this picture! Or John Greenwood, Muir Mathieson, or any number of musicians who worked on British films in the 1930s. Alas...

Also, I was surprised at how patently ignored Lady Jane Grey's faith in Christ was. Only John Knox (played by Laurie) or those surrounding her execution make any mention of God or the Scriptures. This is one area that was more satisfactorily explored in the 1986 film "Lady Jane" (with Helena Bonham Carter playing the title role).
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A little overlooked gem
alfvillanueva30 October 2014
Though I haven't checked the historical accuracy of TUDOR ROSE, I greatly recommend it. Although on paper the cast looked impressive, one can never be sure until after watching the film if it was worthy. In this case, my expectations were more than rewarded: Jut listing the cast is an enormous pleasure: Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Martita Hunt ( always outstanding whatever small the part is), John Mills, Felix Aylmer and many others.

Nova Pilbeam, so delightful as a Hitchcock ingénue , does not disappoint in the title role. Although the characters in most cases are not fully developed, the cast is so talented that they bring out so many nuances that most of the time the situations play as real as life itself. The production values are adequate, though no super production it is far better than many more pretentious biopics or historical pictures of that or any year. I found it outstanding not only for the talent involved but for the overall quality, if we take into account the British production in general at the time of its release (1936) . I strongly recommend it.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Queen for 9 days
AAdaSC12 June 2022
Having just witnessed Elizabeth II hit the landmark of being Queen for 70 years, things were very different in 1553 and 1554 when they had 3 different monarchs within the space of a year, none of whom lasted very long in the job! I've always wanted to know the story of Queen Jane and thanks to the internet I can now read about it. The film does a good job in helping to explain the different factions with an eye on power.

My problem with the film comes from the rather insipid lead characters - Nove Pilbeam (Lady Jane Grey) and John Mills (Guildford) - who are just bland. The film lacks something. There isn't much action as such as it is more a film about intrigue. This is fine. But you need strong acting skills to carry this off. Unfortunately, the picture quality and sound aren't too good which isn't the fault of the film, but these things add up to an overall feeling I had of disappointment. It's ok to watch but not a keeper. Read about the story instead - it's more interesting.

Back to Her Majesty's 70 years of reign, and I think that the monarchs of olde, especially during this film's period of mid 1550s would have been horrified and bored senseless by having to sit through a concert with Ed Sheeran, Duran Duran and whatever other nonsense was put on. Where are the be-headings! What a savage people we are. It's very sad that this still continues in the world today and that we were recently just as guilty as those we today accuse of barbaric behaviour. Why can't Cliff Richard be king and sing his songs to heal the world?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A hugely enjoyable tale of the Nine Days' Queen
GusF4 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is a hugely enjoyable, though fictionalised, historical drama about Lady Jane Grey, the de facto Queen of England for nine days in July 1553. The film is very well directed by Robert Stevenson, who later directed most live action Disney films worth mentioning from the late 1950s to the mid 1970s including "Mary Poppins" and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks". It was written by Stevenson and the wonderful character actor Miles Malleson, who also plays Jane's father the Duke of Suffolk.

Before watching it, I expected the entire film to be a portrayal of Jane's short reign but much of it is actually concerned with the Machiavellian machinations of the Lord Protector Edward Seymour and her eventual father-in-law the Earl of Warwick, better remembered as the Duke of Northumberland. Jane does not become Queen until almost an hour into the 1 hour and 19 minute film and her reign lasts for only 15 minutes on screen. At only 16, Nova Pilbeam was much the same age as Jane was in 1553. She is very effective as the Nine Days' Queen, who is portrayed as an earnest, well-meaning young girl who was manipulated by those around her, ultimately at the cost of her life. Nova Pilbeam retired from acting in 1951 but is still alive at the ripe old age of 95, making this the oldest film that I have ever seen with a surviving star. However, it will hopefully be surpassed in that regard by the 1935 version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" starring Olivia de Havilland in the not too distant future.

The film's two strongest cast members are certainly Cedric Hardwicke and Felix Aylmer, who played Warwick and Seymour respectively. Both men are depicted as being fiercely intelligent, manipulative and willing to do whatever it takes to increase their own power. Of the two, Seymour is somewhat more subtle but no less dangerous. The 28-year-old John Mills is very good as Jane's husband Lord Guildford Dudley and, in spite of their fairly significant age gap, has good chemistry with Nova Pilbeam. However, he has relatively little screen time, not making his first appearance until a full 45 minutes into the film.

In her two scene role as Mary Tudor / Queen Mary I, Gwen Ffrangcon-Davies manages to be suitably imperious as well as softer than I had expected. After proclaiming herself Queen and defeating Warwick's forces, Mary admits to Jane that she believes that she is at little fault when it comes to the plot to put her on the throne but regrets that she must execute her in any event as her position would otherwise be threatened. It's a nice bit of characterisation. Desmond Tester is strong as Edward VI, whom the film also portrays as being the victim of the plotting of Seymour (his uncle) and Warwick. The other cast members who really stood out were Sybil Thorndike as Jane's loving servant Ellen, Martita Hunt (also suitably imperious, as was her wont) as Jane's mother and, in smaller roles, John Laurie as the Protestant reformer John Knox and Frank Cellier as the dying Henry VIII.

The film has a very strong script with good characterisation for both the sympathetic characters and the antagonists. There is a great sense of foreboding which pervades the script. For instance, Thomas Seymour tells Jane not to worry her head, which she would of course eventually lose, and Jane and Lord Dudley discuss their hopes for the future on several occasions. I'm not an expert on the Tudor period but I think that it sticks to the general thrust of events. However, it condenses them considerably. In reality, there were just over seven years between Henry VIII's death and Jane's execution. While the passage of time was never really referenced in the film, it felt more like a year and a half, if that. The use of the sound of a cannon being fired to indicate when an execution had taken place was a very effective technique to get around the fact that they could not be depicted.

Incidentally, the editor of the film was Terence Fisher, one of my favourite directors who later helmed many of Hammer's best films. Aylmer, Malleson and Ffrangcon-Davies all turned up in at least one of his Hammer films decades later, with Malleson effortlessly stealing all of his scenes.

The legitimacy of Jane's brief reign is disputed but, if her status as Queen is accepted, that would mean that there were three English monarchs in 1553. As such, it is a funny but oddly appropriate coincidence that the film was released in 1936, the first and only time since 1553 that there have been three monarchs on the English / British throne in the same year!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This film will assist those whose knowledge of history and geography are lacking.
Peter2206025 November 2002
With all the talk of no history education in the schools in the United States, this film can be used to whet the appetite. When some of us older viewers will remember that great novels were turned into Classic Comics to teach the lazy about great written works, the movie studios were churning out historic films, frequently firming some biographies with fictional text. This film is excellent. For those parents who want to give a "sense of history to their children" they should rent or look for the following movies: YOUNG TOM EDISON, EDISON, THE MAN; ELEANOR, FIRST LADY OF THE WORLD; WILSON; ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS; JUAREZ; SUEZ; DISRAELI; PANCHO VILLA; STANLEY AND LIVINGSTON; DR. EHRLICH'S MAGIC BULLET; HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD; CARDINAL RICHELIEU; THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR and TRUMAN as well as documentary films like THE GUNS OF AUGUST. TUDOR ROSE is a must see, the viewer should program IMDb to advise when these films are on television.
10 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed