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!
Final note, and Many Thanks to you Claire,
I just finished reading all the Comments, and surely “facial stubble” or simply anything regarding “ladies in waiting” fall short of careful, conspiratorial thinking.
Pluck the facial hair and leave the girls alone. Alternative? Violent death!
We’ll never know how many famous men were actually women, or men women.
PS; this is all going to heat up with the new Steve Berry novel.
PPS; I never imagined the possibility of Elizabeth being a man, until I thought about it.
Is there no documentation of The Duke of Richmond past that date? Surely we have some lineage of a Duke on record? If this were to be true (no, it isn’t) then Henry Fitzroy would have fallen off the face of the planet that day.
I agree with you 180%, Claire, and a few other thoughts occur to me. First: a boy playing the part of the May Day Queen? Probably goes back to the Elizabethan tradition of men playing women’s parts. Second, we know from the Thomas Seymour episode that Kat Ashley and Parry were incapable of keeping their mouths shut. Seymour was also the reason why Elizabeth suddenly adopted a very severe hairstyle and wardrobe: it was her way of showing people how unfounded the rumors were.
Henry VIII was many things, but stupid wasn’t one of them. Elizabeth was at court enough, especially after Catherine Parr became queen consort, that he would’ve noticed any difference. I also don’t remember anything about Fitzroy having had a son.
Last, but not least, let’s consider the source, Stoker. We’re talking about a novelist and one who went in for supernatural/sensational stories. His DRACULA is a drastic re-working of the Vlad the Impaler legend. He also had a very negative attitude toward women that comes out in his supernatural stories. In fact, it becomes more pronounced in a his later fiction, and there has been some speculation that he died of tertiary syphilis — ergo, the images of women as supernatural predators in those stories. Syphilitic or not, Stoker strikes me as having been the type of man who would’ve had a knee-jerk reaction to a strong woman like Elizabeth. So, of course, he would’ve bought this inane story — it satisfied his sense of the way things should be,
Have been convinced for a long time that she was gay.
Nobody can blame Elizabeth for not wanting to marry- look what happen to her Mother and her second cousin! I don’t get this. Interesting, but nonsense.
Couldn’t they just open her coffin and put the rumors to rest?
My question is: what happened to the supposed Tudor-era body in the Stone coffin? If it existed, surely it was reburied (the belief in Christian burial being very strong then). I don’t like “smoking guns” that promptly disappear, making scientific analysis impossible. That always smacks of urban legend, rather than truth, to me.
Elizabeth grew up in the same house hold as her half sister Mary, so I think she would have noticed the change. The two sisters dined with their father Henry in Essex when she was ten. She was supposed to be ten when she died. Robert Dudley new her from the age of eight as they were taught together so he would have known.
i would not put it past the royal family to cover all this up, as much stranger things in this family have happened that we the public will never know about, its all hidden in the vaults under a palace somewhere. just think of all the possibilities. Jack the ripper,
princess di, homosexuality and illegitimate offspring.
Makes you think
I have been reading the new Steven Berry novel, and have just become acquainted with the myth of the Bisley Boy. I have always admired Elizabeth I, a strong, intelligent
woman and one of the greatest monarchs that England has ever known.
If there was a secret there, it may be that in her own time, she could not declare her nature, but she may have had a tendency to love another woman rather than a man.
Her more elegant declaration, I believe, is that she was married to England. In our day and time, perhaps it would be easier for such a woman. But if you think about it, very few children must live with the memory of a father who has had your mother executed.
The actions of her father and of those of the men around her were perhaps frightening examples of the true power of men, and powerlessness of women in her time.
At any rate, England was fortunate to have such an excellent sovereign, the last true
absolute monarch of England