Skip to comments.Is this proof the Virgin Queen was an imposter in drag?
Posted on 06/10/2013 3:34:21 PM PDT by BBell
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.
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 kings arrival, his favourite daughter, the only child of his marriage to Anne Boleyn, had been dangerously ill. In the morning, Elizabeth lay dead.
Elizabeths 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 Henrys 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 Englands 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
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Well, Boy George got away with it for a couple of years.........
britroyals.com has the pics and some history on each. I recently checked it out following my family tree.
It was posted earlier.
I'm quite sure.
As is anyone who is familiar with just how intimate the relationship was between a monarch and her ladies-in-waiting.
Her choices, due to the position her father had placed the kingdom in - were extremely limited.
To choose a foreign husband would have meant subjugation for the English, or an alienating alliance with an unimportant principality.
A domestic husband would have meant picking out one domestic faction for favor, encouraging civil war.
I searched but I did not find it posted before. But we all know that the search engine here is not infallible.
I have never been to the British Isles but the small town in which I grew up was full of Mac’s Mc’s and other Scottish names.
There were so many absolute babes in my high school, that I can believe that area must produce a huge number of beauties.
I see ugly women all the time....often driving cars with “Obama/Biden” stickers.
This is just one more step in the attempt at queerification of historical figures.
What’s an Elizabethan to do? ping....
if this is true, then Nursie was wrong, and Elizabeth did, in fact, have a winkle.
Name that program!
Nope. It requires too many people in the know not saying anything.
Blackadder: Second season.
Also: the Earl of Oxford wrote all of Shakespeare’s plays.
English girls are among the worlds most beautiful.
They are indeed.”
You’ve obviously been to a different England than I have.
Quentin Crisp played Elizabeth in a movie. That’s proof enough for me.
When they open it up to satisfy their curiosity, maybe they can do some justice for Mary by burying her separately from Bloody Bess.
Ah, the title is changed.