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?
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.
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!
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.
i do not belive that the story is true because if elizibeth was born a man why wouldnt they say shes a male air, and if she died and people covered it up, well they wouldnt need to fake her because she was dissowened by her father
Surely by now the evidence is rather promising that she was both mentally and physically a Viirago. If you google Elizabeth1 and Virago together and then actually read what the Professor says to the very end it does make extraordinary sense.
there’s something creepy about this story ……
Intriguing story everyone!
Why are we saying that a woman cannot do a better job than a man? She was an amazing woman who was ahead of her time and an absolute ruler. It had nothing whatsoever to do with her gender. She stood up to the mongrels and executed anyone who got in her way.
She is an incredible woman of her times and should be honoured as such!