Was ‘Virgin Queen’ Elizabeth I an Impostor in Drag?

via Christopher Stevens:

Daily Mail elizabeth1

The bones of Elizabeth I, Good Queen Bess, lie mingled with those of her sister, Bloody Mary, in a single tomb at Westminster Abbey. But are they really royal remains — or evidence of the greatest conspiracy in English history?

If that is not the skeleton of Elizabeth Tudor, the past four centuries of British history have been founded on a lie.

And according to a controversial new book, the lie beg an on an autumn morning 470 years ago, when panic swept through a little group of courtiers in a manor house in the Cotswold village of Bisley in Gloucestershire.

Keep reading.

The king, Henry VIII, was due at any hour. He was travelling from London, in great discomfort — for the 52-year-old monarch was grossly overweight and crippled by festering sores — to visit his daughter, Elizabeth.

The young princess had been sent there that summer from the capital to avoid an outbreak of plague. But she had fallen sick with a fever and, after weeks of bleeding, leeches and vomiting, her body was too weak to keep fighting. The night before the king’s arrival, his favourite daughter, the only child of his marriage to Anne Boleyn, had been dangerously ill. In the morning, Elizabeth lay dead.

Elizabeth’s governess, Lady Kat Ashley, and her guardian, Thomas Parry, had good reason to fear telling the king this awful news. It would cost them their lives. Four of Henry’s children had died in infancy and, of the survivors, one — Edward — was a sickly boy of five and the other an embittered, unmarried woman in her late 20s.

The ten-year-old Elizabeth was Tudor England’s most valuable child in many ways. She could surely be married to a French or Spanish prince to seal an international alliance — and her own children would secure the Tudor dynasty Henry so desperately craved.

Now she was dead, and when the king discovered it, Parry and Lady Ashley would surely be executed. Their sole duty had been to keep the princess safe: failure was treason. The penalty would not even be beheading, but death by the most gruesome torture imaginable.

They would be bound and dragged through the mud for a mile to the scaffold. There they would be hanged, cut down and disembowelled. Their entrails would be hauled from their bodies and held in front of their faces as they died, and then their limbs would be hacked off and displayed on spikes, to be picked bare by the birds.

Their only chance of concealing the truth, and perhaps buying themselves a few days to flee the country, was to trick the king.

Kat Ashley’s first thought was to find a village girl and dress her up in the princess’s robe, with a mantle, to fool the king. Bisley was a tiny hamlet, however, and there were no female children of Elizabeth’s age.

But there was a boy, from a local family called Neville. He was a gawky, angular youth a year or so younger than Elizabeth, who had been the princess’s companion and fellow pupil for the past few weeks. And with no time to look further afield for a stand-in, Parry and Lady Ashley took the desperate measure of forcing the boy to don his dead friend’s clothes.

Remarkably, the deception worked. Henry saw his daughter rarely, and was used to hearing her say nothing.  The last time she had been presented in court, meeting the new Queen Catherine Parr, she had been trembling with terror.


Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Ted Heistman

    hairline should have been a tip off…

  • kowalityjesus

    I doubt it, but it would have made Shakespeare’s players ‘Elizabethan’ in more than one way. lol

  • Juan

    “That’s a man, baby!”
    -Austin Powers

  • VaudeVillain
    • echar

      You’ve uncovered a darker conspiracy. Ann Cult of Personality is indeed a vampire and or blood drinking, shape-shifting lizard!

  • LifelongLIb

    As comments to the original article noted, all royals were spied on and their bodily functions constantly reported (because it gave information both on their personal health and the possibility of heirs). Elizabeth was subjected to an intrusive gynecological exam at least once when she was negotiating marriage with a French prince. It’s very unlikely that her being a male could have been concealed for long.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    I watched the following video from beginning to end. That’s probably because I have a particular interest in the history of that region.

    But I think even the casual viewer will be impressed by this thorough, if not particuarly conventional, approach to history. Provided you can temporarily suspend interest in whether or not it’s true, I think you will enjoy it immensely.


    • echar

      but what about the Black Pope? You gotta be wacked out on goofballs to think a black man would ever be a pope. Interesting movie by the way, it’s fun!

      • Liam_McGonagle

        You know, as unusual as some of these ideas appear at first glance, they aren’t really without precedent in actual history:


        I’m not convinced the phenom was really as pervasive as some theorists would like us to believe, but it comes close enough to the truth often enough to make you think.

    • echar

      Page not found on the link. If we are to take Jesus literally, he would be a far cry from the uber white image we typically see, at least olive skinned. As for God, it’s laughable that it even has an image really. I suppose a model to get the message across to children.

      As for black royalty, I don’t know. Maybe they called them that to discredit. This is where my mind goes on all these topics at first, but hey who knows.

      • Liam_McGonagle

        Don’t know what’s going on with the links. Seems to work for me. Anyhow, if you get bored, you can wikipedia “Alessandro de Medici”.

        I don’t want to go too far into the mine field, because some people are really ardent in their beliefs, but even if I disagree with them I’m fascinated by their line of reasoning.

        I understand that there is a very important sense in which the question of whether some historical figure or other was black or white was important. But only for a couple of seconds. And then only if you didn’t really care about the content of their actual ideals.

        The notion of royalty, in a strictly historical sense, is important as a discredited political theory. But from a sociological perspective, as a mental archetypal image for what it means to be fully in command of one’s own life, I guess it’s very important. Which is very ironic.

        One branch of my family has scads of aristos and royals in it. Studying them has been pretty interesting, because I learned that most of these people were really not all that in command of their own lives.

        They spent all their energy on trying to conform to the pressures of power politics, etc, etc. I’m not sure that, on a day to day basis, their lives were actually any more free, glamorous or fulfilling than any of those of my peasant ancestors. A good number of them were executed or died in prison.

        • echar

          Are you talking the Arthurian concept of the Kings health affecting his kingdom?

          I am no expert on royalty, nor anything to be honest (just getting that out there). However it does seem that Royalty is depicted as slaves to their role, with the exception of the big dog on top, who usually is depicted as a total fucking lunatic sociopath who can do whatever,however, whoever, whenever they please.

          I see, Alessandro de Medici was a Moor. I notice he may be the illegitimate son of a pope. Rape perhaps? I see the black pope angle. It would have to be a coup, I think.

          • Liam_McGonagle

            The Arthurian thing hadn’t crossed my mind. I was thinking of the practical realities that anyone in a position of authority faces: having to project power while in reality attending closely to a thousand dangerous constituencies.

            I think that’s why our generation is so particularly f*cked in terms of its “leadership”. As I suggested in my earlier comments, the popular notion of absolute power being located in the person of one individual was always bullsh*t, but I don’t think it always used to be this bad.

            The problem, I think, is that nobody has ANY personal space any more. Not just “too little ” personal space, or “less personal space than our ancestors”. I mean nobody is alone ANYWHERE any more (e.g., the NSA thing, drones, etc., etc.). Too much to attend to too quickly.

            A good deal of those aristos were Irish tribal chiefs, whose prestige and authority was based on their obligation to the kin group from which they were elected–yes, ELECTED.
            Anyhow, the fundamental constituency was small enough that they didn’t even have to pretend to give a sh*t about the feelings of other tribes. Hence their continual internecine warefare and inevitable destruction at the hands of the nascent market economy and its better organized nation state.

            Those chieftains, therefore, had a very well defined sphere of people who counted for them. They didn’t have to pretend about all sorts of strangers and people they’d never met and so on and so forth. They could afford to be indulgent and generous to individuals as whim took them. Hence the partially accurate image of these guys as party-hard types.

            But beginning with the Tudor monarchs, and constantly accelerating up through the current multinational corporatocracy, the number of key constituencies has become greater and greater, and their demands more and more insistent.

            In fact, presidents and prime ministers today probably don’t even have close personal relationships with their most important kingmakers (e.g., Big Oil, etc.), and have only the vaguest clue as to who will be the most decisive. The pieces are just moving too fast on the table.

            Politicians are forced to spend all this time sending out feelers and trying to identify and develop relationships with the true, corporate kingmakers. They have absolutely zero margin to act humanely, be courageous or generous any more. One slip up (with the folks who really count) and they’re gone.

            Of course, what goes without saying is that the one constituency which is publicly acknowledged and remains constant is the one they can feel free to ignore: the people. Democracy works slowly, if at all. By the time the people figure out what’s going on it will already be too late.

          • echar

            Interesting, this sounds likely to me. The big dog has more power if the threat is persistent and hidden.

    • Calypso_1

      I’ve reviewed much of the afro/euro nobility literature. At whatever level any of it may be true it certainly is fuel for thought to question how much of history is a lie. The idea of foreign rulers is not odd at all.

      Look at the Mamluk dynasty of Egypt. They were Ottoman slave rulers, Caucasian/Circassian & Kipchak Turks who were described as blond haired and blue eyed.

      My own family has documented history in England going back 1000 years but our surname relates us to the Moors & I am a J2b haplotype.

      • Liam_McGonagle

        Yes, revelations like that really get your imagination going.

        I suppose there are some questions that will never be definitively resolved, maybe most questions, or at least the most important questions.

        At a certain level makes me wonder about the limits of materialism, or whether as a society we’re really asking the right questions.