Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Was the Virgin Queen an imposter in drag?

22 posts in this topic

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 began 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.

http://www.dailymail...anuscripts.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is true, it would be an amazing stunt they pulled off. Question is however how this should be proven. I do not see the English royal familie allowing the opening of her crypt.

Also, where did the supposed grave of the young girl go?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She ruled for forty years and never married? Obviously she must have been a man! (sarcasm)

:no:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worlds first Drag Queen?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup the queen was a transsexual lol.i heard of this before

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If so then she was the best dressed drag queen ever and true queen.

The article could have did their homework better. They provided images from two movies but forgot to add Quentin Crisp in the role of Queen Elizabeth in the Tilda Swinton vehicle Orlando from 1992.

Tilda Swinton plays Orlando! In the following scene Queen Elizabeth also performs magic.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJWATUB3joU[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to find out, buy the author's book, on sale now for £17.99

available at all major retailers.

while stocks last.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I shall have here but one mistress and no master." --- Elizabeth

:nw:

Edward was not a sickly child either, this is a common misconception. Aside from a fever at the age of four, he was a very healthy young boy. It wasn't until the last months of his life, that he became seriously ill. Most likely it was tuberculosis. Henry went to great lengths to make sure his son's manor houses and such were kept extremely clean. Henry could be somewhat of a germaphobe....

There were many, many reasons Elizabeth didn't marry. Most were political, some pyschological.

Also, it was regularly recorded by Elizabeth's doctors that her periods were "erratic" and last time I checked men don't have those so....

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I shall have here but one mistress and no master." --- Elizabeth

:nw:

Edward was not a sickly child either, this is a common misconception. Aside from a fever at the age of four, he was a very healthy young boy. It wasn't until the last months of his life, that he became seriously ill. Most likely it was tuberculosis. Henry went to great lengths to make sure his son's manor houses and such were kept extremely clean. Henry could be somewhat of a germaphobe....

There were many, many reasons Elizabeth didn't marry. Most were political, some pyschological.

Also, it was regularly recorded by Elizabeth's doctors that her periods were "erratic" and last time I checked men don't have those so....

Erratic could be a diplomatic way of saying that the good doctors never actually witnessed a period but rather were advised they had taken place - at times that were irregular for most women but possibly convenient for a monarch who wished to choose when they would prefer to have privacy - just putting that out there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erratic could be a diplomatic way of saying that the good doctors never actually witnessed a period but rather were advised they had taken place - at times that were irregular for most women but possibly convenient for a monarch who wished to choose when they would prefer to have privacy - just putting that out there.

That's a good possibility and who could blame her? I wouldn't want the entire world to know when it was "my time of the month"....You feel bad enough already! :)

I read somewhere, (most likely Alison Weir since I have every book she ever wrote on the history of the Tudors) that Elizabeth was examined by the doctors, and found capable of producing children. Can't remember where I read that...Now I'm going to try and find it, otherwise it will drive me crazy all day....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't chambremaids and ladies-in-waiting attend to the queen's bath, help her get dressed etc? Surely they would have noticed if the queen had the wrong set of organs or lacked others!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er... beard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the rumors that Queen Victoria's dad was not of royal blood. The article seems like a promotion for a new book and film. The reference to Dan Brown could be a Freudian slip, alluding to tales that weave fantasy with history. Contradictions of the yarn, found in the historical record, are ignored.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always felt Elizabeth feared dying in childbirth, and besides did not want to give any of her power up to a husband. She probably resolved early on to never marry but of course could not say so publicly.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth was a woman but a virgin when she died? Who knows?

Why wouldn't she marry? Let's see.

1. Her father murdered her mother because she didn't produce a son.

2. She would have had to marry a fellow Protestant monarch who was prepared to live in England. Her sister Mary tried that with Philip of Spain and we all know how well that went.

3. As already mentioned, dying in childbirth was a real possibility. I don't blame her for avoiding that fate.

4. She was Queen of England. Why would she want to become someone's wife?

5. The longer she put off marrying, the greater a leverage she had inside England with the nobility and outside England with other countries. The prospect of marrying Elizabeth was a great political tool, lost if she said yes.

Have I missed any?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But did she have any consorts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Official? No. But she was hot and heavy with Robert Dudley. If she was gonna do the horizontal with anyone, it was him.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Official? No. But she was hot and heavy with Robert Dudley. If she was gonna do the horizontal with anyone, it was him.

And there is no way in hell, the English people and her advisors would have stood for that. Had she married Dudley, her "horse master" and a commoner, the people would have revolted and placed Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots on the throne. And let's not forget the mysterious death of Robert's wife, Amy. Although, I think this reason is the most likely possibility:

The coroner's report came to light in The National Archives in 2008 and is compatible with an accidental fall as well as other violence.[81] In the absence of the forensic findings of 1560, it was often assumed that a simple accident could not be the explanation[82]—on the basis of near-contemporary tales that Amy Dudley was found at the bottom of a short flight of stairs with a broken neck, her headdress still standing undisturbed "upon her head",[83] a detail that first appeared as a satirical remark in Leicester's Commonwealth and has ever since been repeated for a fact.[84] To account for such oddidities and evidence that she was ill, it was suggested in 1956 by Ian Aird, a professor of medicine, that Amy Dudley might have suffered from breast cancer, which through metastatic cancerous deposits in the spine, could have caused her neck to break under only limited strain, such as a short fall or even just coming down the stairs.[83] This explanation has gained wide acceptance.

Most modern historians have exonerated Robert Dudley from murder or a cover-up.[85] Apart from alternatives for a murder plot as causes for Amy Robsart's death, his correspondence with Thomas Blount and William Cecil in the days following has been cited as proofs of his innocence; the letters, which show signs of an agitated mind, making clear his bewilderment and unpreparedness.

Also, look at what happened with Mary Stuart in Scotland, and her two disastrous marriages. What Elizabeth did was very politically sound. Elizabeth had an knack for compartmentalizing her feelings from her judgement. Which is what made her such a good politician and queen.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at the men who preceded her (especially her father) and succeeded her (James) and what awful kings they were and how her reign was so successful, and wonder whether or not women make better rulers, at least when they are independent of a husband (Mary, we remember, was subservient to her husband and did a lot of things under pressure from him).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the supposed imposter was named "Neville"... Wasn't the Neville family a very powerful family that played kingmaker at least once in the past?....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at the men who preceded her (especially her father) and succeeded her (James) and what awful kings they were and how her reign was so successful, and wonder whether or not women make better rulers, at least when they are independent of a husband (Mary, we remember, was subservient to her husband and did a lot of things under pressure from him).

Yep. Helped to put Edward IV on the throne and then tried to remove him. Wasn't a good idea. Or successful.

About Amy Robsart, Dudley's wife. After all this time it's impossible to know whether she fell or was pushed. A few points against a natural death.

1. All of the servants were given the day off to go to a fair. There was literally no-one else in the house the day she died. In Elizabethan England, the one thing you couldn't get away from was other people. Why that day? Coincidence, sure, could have been.

2. Elizabeth apparently spoke about Amy's death a few days before she actually died. Now, again, there's no way to prove that. Could be reactivist propaganda.

3. Dudley had lots of powerful enemies. Amy's death really pretty much finished him as far as becoming anything more to Elizabeth than a good friend.

I'm not saying Amy didn't die from complications caused by cancer. It makes sense. But there are other alternative explanations for her death. Just saying.

And if Amy's death was homicide, would Elizabeth have sanctioned it?

No. Like I said she was Queen of England and she had a rep to maintain. She undoubtedly had a very soft spot for Essex but he had the chop when he overeached himself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.