The Bisley Boy
Posted By Claire on November 4, 2009
Bram Stoker
Don’t you just love conspiracy theories?! 911, Roswell, the moon landing, JFK, Princess Diana, Michael Jackson…the list goes on, but did you know that there is a conspiracy theory relating to Elizabeth I which, if true, would make our present day Queen actually Queen Elizabeth I rather than Elizabeth II?
Before I go into the story, I must say a big thank you to Elizabeth Files visitor Jenny for mentioning this long forgotten legend or conspiracy and making me research it some more. I had heard that there were those who believed that Elizabeth I was actually a man but I had never really looked into it before and now I’m glad I did, it’s a fascinating story.
Bram Stoker and Bisley
This conspiracy theory has its roots in the writings of Bram Stoker, the famous writer of the Gothic novel Dracula (one of my favourite books!).
Stoker wasn’t just an author, he was also the personal assistant of the actor Henry Irving who had been looking for a house in the Cotswolds in Gloucestershire, England. It was in the village of Bisley that Irving came across the legend of “The Bisley Boy” and he passed the story on to Stoker who was keen to investigate. Both Stoker and Irving were intrigued by the fact that the village’s May Day celebrations involved a boy May Queen dressed in Elizabethan costume. Such traditions are generally based on an historical event or legend and Stoker wanted to find out more about this one – why a male Queen? His digging resulted in a chapter of his book “Famous Imposters” being devoted to “The Bisley Boy”.
You can read the whole story of The Bisley Boy legend in Bram Stoker’s “Famous Imposters”, which can be read online at Internet Archive or downloaded at EbooksRead.com, but I will give a synopsis of the story here and why some people have given credence to this conspiracy theory – Stoker seemed to be convinced of it!
The Bisley Boy Legend
The Story
According to legend, Princess Elizabeth (or rather the Lady Elizabeth) was sent to Overcourt House in Bisley sometime around 1543/1544 to get away from London, where the plague was rife, and enjoy the Cotswold country air. Unfortunately disaster struck and the ten year old princess was taken ill. As the princess lay gravely ill, her governess received word that the King was on his way to visit his daughter and while the house was preparing for the royal visit the princess died from acute fever. What on earth could the governess do? The King was famous for his awful temper and rages and the child’s governess was in a state of despair and complete panic – how could she tell the King of the death of his daughter?
Bisley, Gloucestershire
Fearing for her life, the governess searched the local village for a suitable girl to replace Elizabeth so that they could delay this bad news, hide Elizabeth’s body and tell the King at a later date. Her search was utterly futile, no girl of the right age and colouring could be found but suddenly a thought struck her, there was a fair, red headed boy that had actually been a playmate to the little princess. He was a pretty boy, had the right colouring and was close at hand. In desperation, the governess dressed him in the princess’s dress and the deception began.
According to legend, the King, who did not frequently visit his daughter, did not notice the substitution, after all, Elizabeth had always been wary of him and he was in rather a hurry any way. The plan worked and worked so well that the King was never told the truth and Elizabeth’s body was never moved from the stone coffin in the garden at Overcourt where it had initially been hidden. Over three hundred years later, the Reverend Thomas Keble told his family of the discovery of the remains of a girl’s body in a stone coffin at Overcourt while building work was being carried out at the manor house. The remains included rags of fine, Tudor style clothing – cue “Twilight Zone” music!!
The Reasons Stoker Gave it Credence
Well, you can be forgiven for calling this story”tommyrot”, which is what The New York Times said of it in in its 1911 review of Stoker’s book, but here are some of the reasons why Stoker gave it so much credence:-
- Elizabeth’s secretive nature – Her actions during her lifetime seemed to suggest, according to Stoker, that she had a closely guarded secret. Sir Robert Tyrwhitt wrote to Protector Somerset in 1549: “I do verily believe that there hath been some secret promise between my Lady, Mistress Ashley [Elizabeth's governess] and the Cofferer [Sir Thomas Parry] never to confess to death. “
- Elizabeth’s close relationship with Kat Ashley, Thomas Parry and Blanche Parry – She treated them all with favour and kept them close to her.
- Elizabeth’s refusal to marry
- Rumours that Elizabeth could not bear children – In April 1559, when Elizabeth was only 25, the Count de Feria wrote: “If my spies do not lie, which I believe they do not, for a certain reason which they have recently given me, I understand that she [Elizabeth] will not bear children.”
- A significant change in literary style between the letters Elizabeth wrote Catherine Parr in 1543 and 1544.
- Roger Ascham’s warning in one letter to Kat Ashley not to be too zealous in her teaching of Elizabeth and to go slowly and then a later letter written by Roger Ascham to John Sturmius, Rector of the Protestant University of Strasbourg in 1550 where he writes: The constitution of her mind is exempt from female weakness, and she is endued with a masculine power of application. No apprehension can be quicker than hers, no memory
more retentive. French and Italian she speaks like English; Latin with fluency, propriety and judgment; she also spoke Greek with me, frequently, willingly, and understanding well. Nothing can be more elegant than her handwriting, whether in the Greek or Roman character. In music she is very skillful but does not greatly delight. With respect to personal decoration, she greatly prefers a simple elegance to show and splendour, so despising the outward adorning of plaiting the hair and of wearing of gold, that in the whole manner of her life she rather resembles Hippolyta than Phaedra.” - Catherine Parr’s encouragement of the “horseplay” between her husband, Thomas Seymour, and Elizabeth – Did she know that Elizabeth was a boy and this was her idea of revenge on her husband?
- Elizabeth’s huge stock of wigs – Were they to cover male baldness?
- Elizabeth’s refusal to see other doctors – Stoker cites the occasion when Elizabeth was ill during her house arrest at Woodstock. Apparently, Elizabeth’s usual physicians were not available and Elizabeth refused to see anyone else.
Others who believe this conspiracy theory have also pointed out that Elizabeth left instructions for no post mortem to be carried out on her body and that she liked to wear big dresses and high necklines, which would have hid her male body and use thick drag queen-like makeup.
Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond
Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond
Who was the Boy?
You must read Stoker’s chapter on “The Bisley Boy” to fully understand this, it’s rather long-winded and complicated, but Stoker believed the boy to be the Duke of Richmond’s son by Mary Howard. As the Duke of Richmond was Henry VIII’s illegitimate son, this would explain the boy’s colouring being similar to Elizabeth’s, the resemblance and the intelligence.
Reasons to Discredit this Theory
As much as I love Bram Stoker, I have to say “Poppycock!” very loudly.
I just cannot believe this story has any truth in it whatsoever and I think it’s just people’s attempts to try and understand how a woman can live life without sex and marriage – she must have been a man!
Here are some of my reasons for not believing:-
- Henry VIII was not thick – Surely he would have noticed a change in his daughter even if he hadn’t seen her for a while!
- Elizabeth was not bald – She chose to wear wigs for her image and then to hide her greying hair. When the Earl of Essex famously burst into her bedchamber, he saw a grey haired Elizabeth and according to courtier Rowland Whyte the Queen was “newly up, her hair about her face”.
- Elizabeth had periods – When Philip II’s emissary bribed the Queen’s laundress for details on Elizabeth’s health, the woman reported that the Queen was functioning normally, i.e. menstruating regularly.
- According to Tracy Borman, Elizabeth delighted in wearing low necklines, even into old age. If she was trying to hide a lack of breasts then this was not the way to do it!
- Puberty – Could a teenage boy really have hidden all of the changes involved in puberty?
- Robert Dudley – Whether or not you believe that Elizabeth and Dudley had an intimate relationship, surely Dudley would have noticed that she was a man. I guess you could argue that this was why they never married or why Elizabeth never got pregnant – they could have been gay lovers! – but I’m sorry, I just don’t believe that.
- The secret would have got out – As much as Stoker argues that Bisley was very cut off and that Kat Ashley and the Parrys kept this secret to their graves, I cannot believe that they could have got away with it.
- Doctors – I know Elizabeth was very fussy about her doctors but a whole panel of doctors once examined her during marriage negotiations to see if she could still bear children and they decided that she could. Wouldn’t they have noticed that she was actually a he!
What do you think?
Is this just a story to satisfy those who can’t believe that a woman could rule England so successfully or live without marriage and children or do you think there’s some truth in it?
I do love conspiracy theories!
Comments
47 Responses to “The Bisley Boy”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
I have to agree with you Claire..they (crusty historians) always fall back on the ‘well she was too aggressive, witty, inelligent, (whatever) to have been a woman’..as you say POPPYCOCK!!
Oh, I thought it was a theory that Elizabeth had always been male from birth. That absolutely didn’t make sense as it would have been to Anne’s advantage to have a male heir.
I still think it’s bunk, too. Elizabeth simply proved that a woman can indeed do a man’s job more than adequately.
Hi everybody,
I suppose I like to put “spanners in the works” but this idea was reallyplayed iup in Madrid theatre duringtheb80s and 90s so I had to look into it although I got veyr little information.
In repy to Claire’s comments –
.1)Yes Henry was not thick but I don’t think he had much interest in a daughter who was considered a bastard.
2) We all know Eliabeh’s love of wearing wigs – but to hide her greying hair? It is a known fct thta redheads (and I am one) tend to be the last people to lose their colour and it goes from red to white. I had an aunt in her late 70s who stil, had shocking red hair.
3) The lack of hair and the colouring could have been due to the fact that Elizabeth used lead makeup from an earliest age which would have affected the skin and the hair, It would also have hidden any “stubble”
4) Whilst low necklines were in fashion, many men had hugh chests that could be simulated to produced bosoms. The lower garment hid whether there was a penis.
5) Elizabeth’ fabourite doctor was Doctor Wendy who could have been paid off.
6)= It was in the interests of the councillors to keep an “Elizabteh” on the throne.
I am not saying I agree with the Bisley Boy theory bt there is a lot going for it. Unfortunately I am wuote busy with work so I quote often fon’t have time to sit down and read everything which is coming out .
But this is such an interesting site – All thanks to Claire for etting it up and being able to communicate with people interested in the same issues (Sory I hate the phrase “like-minded people”
As much as I love Dracula, I think that Bram Stoker might have been on the absinthe or something to come up with this one!! I know there’s a lot of contoversy over Elizabeth’s sexuality etc. but this theory is, as I said, complete poppycock and I’m not a feminist but it does strike me that it is men trying to downgrade a woman’s success by implying that she must have been a man!
Totally agree with both of you, Gwenne and Cynthia!
Hi Jenny,
Thank you for your kind comments and I’m so glad that you like the site, I don’t think of it as my site more of a community site where people can exchange their views about Elizabeth.
I think there was a mysterious period where Elizabeth was sent from court after having previously got on well with her father, perhaps there was some disagreement, but otherwise, from what I have read, Henry delighted in his rather precocious daughter. I suppose with royal children having their own households and Henry being busy with running the country, the troubles with Scotland and France, getting over Catherine Howard and marrying Catherine Parr etc. that he may not have seen his daughter that much but I can’t see how he could have not noticed.
As far as redheads are concerned, my Mum was a redhead, she used to be called “carrot top” because her hair was bright red but she went grey in her 40s, not white and is grey now in her 60s. My grandmother went white but my Mum is definitely grey.
Yes, the dresses of the time could have hidden a man, doctors can be paid off and it was in the interest if Elizabeth’s councillors to keep her on the throne but surely the story would have got out and given those who supported Mary Queen of Scots the fuel they needed to topple Elizabeth.
I do love conspiracy theories but I just can’t give this one credence I’m afraid. Great story though, I loved researching it so thanks Jenny!
Writers in Bram Stoker’s day were always on something – And you are right he was living in a man’s world. As you say Dracuka is a brilliant book. Stoker never visited Rumania ye I have been through Transylvania and recognied his descriptions of places –
But back to “Liz 1″ as I call her. She has been my heroine, ever since I could read. She was a redhead, she lioved to read, she was left alone a lot and not treated that wellby her family when she was young. I emphathise with her incredibly. And now, I can say that the greatest English wioman in history not oly had read hair but was highly educated. Well I have the red hair, I am well educated but could not have done half the stuff she did.
So I think we all agree that the “Bisley Boy” story i another one of those 16th century tyoe “Hola” articles.
Dracula is amazing, I love it even though I had to tear it apart in English at uni – books tend to lose their mystique when you do that to them!! Oooh, I want to got to Transylvania! Is it beautiful?
Yes, Liz 1 was an amazing woman, a real role model and I admire her mum too.
Are you in Madrid then?
I have never heard of this. Thanks for an interesting piece! I also think it is poppycock!
One thing that I wondered about was the boy May queen at Bisley. Could the tradition of a boy Queen come from the practice in Elizabethan times of men playing woman’s parts on stage?
Hi Clairer and Carla
For Claire – yes I am based in Madrid and had to do a study of Voctoria Eurgenia (the King’s garndmother) for a project I was working on – Another sad story.
With regards to Transylvania, I went not long aftee Ceacescu died and the country was in a real mess. What was actually great was that we had a puncture in teh small van taking us to our hotel just near Drac’s Castle at midnight with a full mooon and with four Madrileños and 4 catalans you can imagine the set up. Obviously the country has changed but the Transylvania area is extremely beutiful and I believe it is now being looked after. BTW Vlad the Impaler is another interesting perso to research!!! – Lavibng Bran Sroker out of it.
And Carla – Yes the Boy of Bisley could be the fact that boys had to play women – I think bu cannot be sure that it was “Restoration” England thataloowed real actresesses.
Business wise I am workingwith tours in the Fjords of Norway (agaian a connection with England) which means more research but great.
One day I a gong to have to sit down and really look at all the site that have been set up and the comments. I Have passed the site pver to a friend of mine Enzo who lives in Saudi and am sending a copy of everything I recive to a freind in the south west of Ireland because she doesn’t think that for the mo. she can join up with us all.
I think it is absolute nonsense! Elizabeth is still the best king we never had!
The most unlikely part of the story is that Henry would have bothered to make the, then, long and arduous journey to the Cotswolds to visit a sick Elizabeth – a child he had little regard for at the best of times.
Also there is absolutely no evidence that Elizabeth ever left the seat up in the privy.
As you said, Poppycock!!!
What utter rubbish. She would of been found out pretty quickly if she was a man. I can see why Stoker gave it credence, but as you said, he must of been on the vino tinto to take it seriously.
And Carla – Good point! That probably has more to do with it than the fact than the Elizabeth-was-a-man theory.
He he, your comment made me laugh, Rochie! I think that Henry was supposed to be hunting nearby or something but, yes, very tenuous!
I’m glad we’re pretty much all agreed on the poppycock theory!
And… the Bisley Boy wrote Shakespeare’s plays in his spare time when he wasn’t busy being queen. I think there’s some patronizing towards women going on here too. QEI was a strong monarch with a good head, hence she couldn’t have been a woman, just as Shakespeare wasn’t well-educated enough to write what he wrote.
Love those conspiracy theories. Dracula is proof enough that Stoker had an active imagination.
On the other hand, surely some interprising novelist will turn this theory into a best-seller before too long.
They have – check out “The Bisley Boy” by Chris Hunt on Amazon!! See http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bisley-Boy-Chris-Hunt/dp/0854492216
I think that Stoker was far off in believing that the child was Henry Fitzroy, and way off on a lot of other things too…
- First off, Henry Fitzroy was several years older than Elizabeth- he was born in 1519, and died in 1536 at the age of 17 (when Elizabeth was a toddler). It would be hard to pass off a 25 y/o man as a 10 y/o girl, and I find it highly unlikely.
- Secondly, if they found a boy going through puberty to play the part of Elizabeth, I have a hard time believing that it would be easy to hide the signs of a changing male body- lead make up or not (did pre-teens in those days wear makeup like the girls of today do?).
-They could not have just found some random little boy running about the property to play a princess- one would have to had been highly educated to speak multiple languages, read, write, and play instruments (in those days). Despite the fact she was a girl, that sort of training was reserved for royal children…
-Lastly the horseplay between Elizabeth and Thomas Seymour became inappropriate enough at one point Elizabeth was sent away after Catherine Parr found Seymour and Elizabeth embracing…most boys I know would be weirded out by some guy entering their room in their bed clothes for some night tickle parties…
I too believe that the idea of a woman taking charge in a “man’s world” was too overwhelming for society- so what better way to explain it than by saying “she was a man.” We do it today in the fact that if a woman is an “alpha female” or in a position of power, she will be labeled all sorts of things by those who feel threatened by her. Just think of Anna Wintour (editor of Vogue)…they made a move about her (The Devil Wears Prada).
I mean, if I woman can rule a country, what’s next? They’ll think that they can inherit property or even worse…VOTE! *gasp* (I hope my sarcasm translates)
So did Stoker write a good story? Sure- but it is just that…a story.
Hi Sheena,
Stoker actually believed that the boy was Henry Fitzroy’s son, not Henry Fitzroy himself. There is a very long and complicated argument in Stpker’s chapter about why he thinks it is possible that Fitzroy and Mary Howard had a son. According to Stoker this boy would have been well educated and probably inherited his grandfather’s intelligence and looks, so was perfect for the role.
Yes, totally agree with you about the puberty issue and the whole Seymour horseplay. I just can’t see how Elizabeth would have got away with it for all that time!
Your sarcasm did come across brilliantly!
Oh wow.. I know Stoker had an active imagination, but geez…
This sounds a bit far-fetched to me…
I’m afraid this kind of sexist myth about Elizabeth is not that uncommon. In the sixteenth century it was believed that women who exercised power over men lost their femininity and were rendered barren. It was an idea drawn from the Greek myth of the masculine women called the Virago, And these beliefs are surprisingly persistent, In 1985 a doctor Bakan went so far as to suggest that Elizabeth’s mental toughness suggested she suffered from testicular feminization and was genetically male. I discuss these theories briefly in my book on the Grey sisters (Jane, Katherien and Mary) best wishes, Leanda de Lisle
Since ten years old Elizabeth was just seen as a witch’s bastard who would never become sovereign, Kat Ashley wouldn’t have been blamed the way the way this story suggest! At this time the death of a child hadn’t the same impact as today: little lives are fragile, there is plague and other diseases, lot of children died and life went on. I’ve never hezrd that someone was much blamed for the death of Arthur of Wales, or for baby prine Henry’s ( Katherine of Aragon son). But placing a commoner instead of a King’s daughter would have been pure betrayal. And what about Mary’s constant defiance of Elizabeth? She would have discoverd the truth I’m sure, or at least Spanish spies at her court!
Hi Everyone – Just to put a Spanner in the works and really this should go on to Elizabeth’s men. But during her reign there was man (and I have the info. somehwere at home where I only tend to sleep thesde days) that Elizbathe did have a son by Dudley who landed up in the panish Court and for a while Phillip II `played up this “farce”
Hi Leanda,
I think you need to write a book on Elizabeth! I hadn’t heard about Dr Bakan, must look into him and his theory, and your book is sat next to me on my desk ready to read!
Hi Lexy,
I agree, even if Henry hadn’t noticed I’m sure that Mary or other people would have noticed.
Hi Jenny,
I’d like to hear more about that story, sounds interesting, I think I read that somewhere too nut can’t remember which book it was in.
Hi Claire,
Sorry I have not been in touch. My only compllaint is that these posts are absorbing more time than I have available BUT to answer your question – Can’t find the bookds at home (well am hardly ever there except to sleep) but if you go on to Google and put in Arthur Dudley, some info DOES come up. Probably Spanish propaganda.
On another note to do with different posts on why Elizabeth was so strong in a so called “man’s world” -there is a very long list of famous women who may not have been “upfront” but were definitely the power behind the thrones at some stage or another – Eleanor of Aquitaine who lived until 89!!!!, Isbaella of France (ex of Edward II) and a much longer list. Personally I think that has to do with the fact that women are by nature “multi-taskers” whereas I have found men in general can only focus on one thing at a time and/or get other people to do the rest.
I have a new theory! Elizabeth was really a vampire who only pretended to age and then left England to live in Virginia where she met Carlisle Cullen and became a vegetarian vampire. She is the English teacher in Forks, Washington right now.
I love that theory, Lisa! Brilliant!
hello everyone, i’m new to this site but i have been studying tudor history since i was 13 years old, the story of elizbeth being a man was first introduced to me by my mother, i obviously tought it was ludicrous, however after many years of reading and information, not just on elizabeth but on all the figures that were close to her I have managed to cross examine all the ambassador reports and historical eveidence, i say historical evidence with a smile as some parts of history asre written to suit the times. on the fact of elizabeth beinga man there are possibilities, we tend to be a bit naive as to think that it could not have been pulled off as she led such a pubblic life, as said before it was on englands best interest that she be kept on the throne to prevent civil war, even now days we know nothing of the secretes that are going on with pubblic figures or with events that happened, we are only told what they think we need to know. the theory that she died, might be true, but i have reserached it to be shightly different, apaprently she died after her ascension on the throne, when she contracted smallpox, she was near deaths door, she appointed Robert dudley as lord protector of the realm in event of her death, (now we know how this would have went down with the council and court!) apparently thought she survived amazingly with no marks on her face or body which was unnatural as it always left victims horribly disfigured, this is how the swap took place, had she died she had only been on the throne for a few years, leaving country with no heir, and the possibility of a catholic queen, unrest, invasion, so they swapped her witha man closely resenbling her hence the unscarred face, and the need of wigs, it is evident through reading evidence that her way of ruing changed drastically from this point on, and her fashion changed over night, as she hadn’t always worn wigs or painted her face, so the charade started and he/she would never have been able to
marry now, even though before the ilness there is evidence that she was close to marrying robert dudley, why was essex later on executed? was his failed attempt to seize london and revolt gainst the queen? after all she had pardoned him worse? or was it that he saw something on that moprning when he stormed into her chamber unannounced? history puts it down as thw queen being mortified of having a man she loved see her as an old woman as she really was by then, not hidden behind her paint and finery, or did he see what she really was, and needed to be executed. it would have been easy to pass as a woman in those days, the clothes gave ample space to hide anything, in regards to breast she was famous for being very thin, so that could not have caused much problems. Robert dudley was famous for being her favourite, yet the evidence suggests that he did not kow how to handle her moods one day she wnated him reeled him in and then abroptly he wa dropped and taken back, he never knew where he stood at times, she liked men about her court, but only ahd few female friends and servants she could trust, Mary dudley famously nursed her through her smallpox and fell ill with the ilnees herself, being so terribly disfigured she asked to leave court and retire. there is lots of eveidence and i could go on for a while, anyway hope this makes people think a little.
Hayley
Hi Hayley,
Thank you so much for your comment and welcome to the site. It is interesting what you say about how there’s another story that Elizabeth died of smallpox, that’s one I hadn’t heard. I love these conspiracy theories and I take your point that you can use historical evidence to back them up, but I cant see it myself. I think that Elizabeth was slightly disfigured by smallpox and that was the point at which she started wearing the thicker make-up in an effort to disguise the scars. I also think that, like her father, as she got older she became more conscious of how people saw her and needed to keep the image of youth and strength. That’s why she was so strict on how artists portrayed her in portraits. She may have been an old woman in reality but she made sure that the propaganda showed the nation that she was still strong, beautiful and the iconic queen they knew. I think her clothes, wigs and make-up were all part of this image, rather than being an effort to cover up the fact that she was a man or an imposter. I guess we’ll never know!
Claire — I had never heard this story before, although I’ve heard the tale of Elizabeth actually being a man (which never made sense to me because if she was born a male, Henry VIII”s dream, the King would have announced it to the world and it might have been “all’s well that ends well” with him and Anne). I always said the rumor likely came from the typical male of the time who would never believe that a “frail” female could be a ruler without the help of a husband! Her enemies, naturally, would look for anything to disparage her so any nonsense on their part about her being a man, or born with no female parts or whatever else they dreamt up was propaganda on their part (after all, we’re talking about the “bastard” daughter of the evil Concubine). But the Bisley Boy tale had me LMAO! I like “Dracula” just like you Clare, but Bram Stoker needed to stick with his vampire tales. Bu you have definitely made my day as far as over-the-top stories historic stories. Funny that these folks can’t just accept that you had an incredible female and leave it at that.
It is a great story isn’t it, Tina! Yes, perhaps people just couldn’t cope with Elizabeth being a strong woman in her own right and not needing a male consort to guide her. I just love these myths!
This tale is complete rubbish and the sad thing is that it goes on even today, because a woman can’t be intelligent, talented, and sexual. Just look how the media portrays Lady Gaga, saying that she has male parts or that she is a man, because she has a strong sexuality. It makes me mad. However, it can go both ways. In high school, in english class, we were about to read Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare and my teacher at the time mentioned a conspiracy theory about Shakespeare and that theory was that he was actually a woman.
With great respect to all the interesting ideas/theories exressed here (although most peopl – myself included – reject them), I suspect the old May Day festival at Bisley had little or nothing to do with Elizabeth I – in drag or otherwise. Some of you may remember the now-famous film “The Wicker Man” from the 1970′s (or have noted its recent re-make). In one shoreline sequence there is a procession led by Lord Summerisle (played by Chr istopher Lee). He is shown wearing a long woman’s wig and a skirt. This follows closely other folk festivals noted by British antiquarians and some are still performed. This Man/Woman character is frequently called “The Betty” – a well-known diminutive of “Elizabeth”.
May Day festivals with their Maypoles, dancing, gathering flowers and herbs in the local woods, were wholly pagan fertilty rites barely tolerated by the Catholic Church. They were, however, extremely popular with ordinary people, the Nobility and most mediaeval kings. Henry VIII celebrated May Day with extraorinary enthusiasm – especially during the first two decades of his reign. It was only during the Puritan ascendancy in the 17th century that there was a ferocious crack-down initiated by Cromwell and Parliament. When the Monarchy was restored in 1660, all the old customs (including Christmas) were joyfully revived.
I strongly suspect that the “Bisley Boy” was a “Betty”. Why “Betty” ? I have no real idea. The name “Elizabeth” appears in The New Testament as the mother of John The Baptist and “kinswoman” of The Virgin Mary. “El” was a name given to God in The Old Testament and is connected in some way with the Canaanite god “Bel” or “Ba’al”. This was the god of the famous “Jezebel”, the wife of the infamous King Ahab and synonymous with female ‘excess’ by the prophets. The names “Isobel/Isabel(la)” are closely related to Jezebel and Elizabeth.
I think Elizabeth’s toughness and strength was due to the fact she was Anne Boleyn’s daughter.
That’s all
That’s such rubbish! And very odd… I couldn’t ever think of Elizabeth as a man.
Very Interesting.
I agree that this is “Poppycock,” but very interesting and entertaining poppycock.
Taken together with other conspiracy theories of the time it could form the basis of a lengthy “Historical” Novel.
There is, however, no possibility that it is anything other than a story. Apart from your well argued defence, Elizabeth sometimes refered to her childhood. She would have made many mistakes if she were not the real Elizabeth, and would have been found out.
Not in my wildest dreams can I imagine Henry contemplating the thought of going to visit his sick daughter. Or anyone else who was sick. Henry ran from illness. He did not go toward it.
The whole thing is poppycock. Stoker should have stuck to his vampire stories. They were more believable than is Elizabeth having been a boy/man.
Just an aside: If this boy grew into a man, wouldn’t his/her ladies-in-waiting wonder about the beard he had to shave off everyday?
I found this story very interesting—I just saw it on the History channel, and decided to look up related stories and websites on the Internet. The most interesting thing is that my family (Dudley-on my Mom’s side) has passed the same exact story down for hundreds of years.
Same story–Elzabeth died, and a boy was substituted–however in the Dudley family story, the Castle Elizabeth went to was Dudley Castle (abt 90 miles NW of London) and the substituted child was “Arthur Dudley”.
This story does continue, though, as Arthur, was Robert Dudey’s younger brother–which would explain the close relationship of Robert and the “Queen”, and why Robert never blew the whistle on the substitution.
I might add–one of the traits of the Dudley family is red hair
I wrote this legend into a story of mine in the 80s and posted it to myself,never having opened it.Since then I have done more research and have ended up shooting myself in the foot and it all hinges on the fact that Elizabeth`s skin and eyes were the close match of her mother`s ,the late dear Ann Bullen.The eyes and skin of both of them were dark,as if they had Gipsy or Spanish blood.Later Ann signed herself Anna de Boullan;is this a clue to her origins?Anyway – -I can now say that I do not believe the story,fascinating as it may be.
The remains of a dead child? That does sound a bit creepy, but who says it’s Elizabeth?
This is a sexist theory. Who says a woman has to have children or be a powerful monarch?
I do enjoy reading and laughing at the absurdity of these theories, though.
Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth II, and Margaret Thatcher: three of England’s great rulers. Have theories ever been proposed that they were in fact genetically male?
Interesting theory
Things over looked.
If Elizabeth had died in childhood. Then it is far more likely that protestant powers would of wanted someone to take her place. After all Edward was never a well boy and if anything happened to him, then it would be her the protestants of England would look to. Mary tried during her reign to find evidence of betrayal to send Elizabeth to her death, but was unable to.
If Elizabeth had died and been replaced by a boy. The boy’s genitals would obviously have been removed, probably entirely. A proces sthat was well versed in that age, castration was often carried out on young choir boys through Europe to keep their voices sweet high and fresh, This would negate any secondary male characteristics if done before the full onset of puberty, A form of corseting would of moved and pushed flesh to appear like breasts.
Although possible, I think it unlikely.
There are very good reasons why Elizabeth stayed single and trusted very few people. One has only to look at her upbringing, how turbulent, unsettled and dangerous it was. no one was safe in Henry’s reign. If she had married alot of her influence would of been nullified. She understood this, she had grown up watching women used as playthings, in favour, out of favour, executed, with very little say in their defence. She was the main stay in gradually bringing catholic and protestant to see themselves as English first.
She may have had smallpox, then again it may have been a lesser affliction such as chicken pox, which could still be deadly in those days, but not as dangerous as smallpox. The young Elizabeth was in and out of Henry’s favour, one wonders how many times Henry wondered was she actually his. He had no doubts about Mary or Edward. Yet the demise of Anne and the way she was accused must have long left him wondering. So his love for bess amy have been tempered by that. He also knew that she would carry on his church, if she ever came to the throne.
There is no doubt that Elizabeth was kept away form Henry for much of his reign and the above would of been why. She was seldom seen at court in her early years. Whilst there is the slightest possibility that Elizabeth could of died as a child and been replaced by a boy. It is highly unlikely. Elizabeth had strong parents, she grew up in constant danger. Her childhood would of built the strength of character we saw in the woman.
Of course if the skeleton of the buried child still exists, a DNA test would clear it up.
DNA testing solved the mystery of what happened to the young dauphin in the french revolution. He died two years after being taken prisoner. His heart had been kept in a jar and samples were taken and matched his parents. So the same could be done here.
An addition- Her refusal to allow doctors other than one near her, is far more likely to be one of trust, rather than gender identity. I would not be surprised if she felt the deaths both of Edward and Mary were contrived. Powerful men played behind the throne, both Catholic and Protestant, who would manipulate to get the monarch on the throne who would do them the most good.
Also the May Day is about mother earth and fertility rights including sexual union. The Bisley boy May queen, may well have nothing to do with Elizabeth the first. But more to do with the combining of the sexes and of us being one together being a complete whole.
Maybe again the first Bisley may Queen boy took the place of the little girl in the wall. Maybe the girl in the wall was was a young trainee lady in waiting. If she did exist and was not just a reverend’s fantasy. If we had her body all would be revealed.
I just saw this nonsense on National Geographic, of all programs. I thought they were immune from this kind of rubbish, sadly I was wrong. Elizabeth I was the greatest Monarch England has produced to date. I believe she refused to marry as she would not play second fiddle to a “foreign” Prince! She was, after all, the daughter of Henry VIII.
I grew up a mere 2 miles from Buckingham Palace & attended Westminster City Grammar School on Palace Street adjacent to the palace, I am a staunch Monarchist & an admirer of “Good Queen Bess”. In regards to this “story”, I think the motto of the Order of the Garter says it all. “Honi soit qui mal y pense” (Evil to him who evil thinks)
Regnum Defende
You may be interested in reading http://www.areawidenews.com/blogs/imnotcrazy/entry/45255/ but it may make your blood boil! I think articles like that show the damage that these kind of programmes do.
I heard this story many years ago. You never know! It does make sense because she wore high neck collars which could have disguised an Adam’s apple and heavy makeup to cover possible stubble. It could be the reasons some of her alleged lovers could have been because they knew the truth and she had to rub them out. If anyone found out she was a man, they’d know she wasn’t really Henry VIII’s daughter and she(he) would have been driven out of power and likely executed. So there are reasons to consider this story true. Only an exhumation of the body and a DNA test with Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn would be proof.
This is total hogwash. At the age of 11 Elizabeth had been dishoned by her father and was removed from the line of succession. Her death at that time wouldn’t have mattered to her father at all. If she was born a male then her fathers problem would have been solved and the events leading to her mothers death wouldn’t have happened, The rest is all speculation because she didn’t marry or produce an heir. Her father spent his life trying to provide a male heir to succeed him. He never know that he had already produced the greatest monarch that England would ever know. The little red-headed Elizabeth. 400 years later she remains as such.