Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
1:21 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
It seems a new book by writer Steve Barry is claiming Elizabeth was a man in drag. I cannot even take this stuff seriously…I guess book publishers do.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
12:26 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Most of the trouble is that the boffins simply won’t except that Elizabeth was truly a brilliant monarch. Remember woman back then didn’t really hold that much power there were the odd exceptions but for the most part a woman’s role was to keep their trap shut and have babies.
Elizabeth showed the world that a woman can do just a well as any man in ruling.
But then none of that would have been possible if it wasn’t for Anne. She started the movement I suppose that gave us equality.
It’s easier for the boffins or crackpots to come up with excuses and say Elizabeth was a man or blah blah blah, they think it makes them sound educated etc. Bullplop…
There is simply too much evidence to give this crackpot any thought. For instance we know that Elizabeth’s period’s were erractic but she did have them, so where did the blood come from?
The doctor who examined her at the time she was thinking about marriage to her Frog Prince. Surely he would have noticed if she had a doodle and dooberries?
Someone said at the bottom of the article that Duchess has posted, where was the beard growth? and of course added to that is where is the chest hair.
Elizabeth was all woman but she ruled like a man. What her father started she finished and England was at peace at the time of her death. She earned her title Gloriana and she followed her motto Semper Eadem. She belonged to England and England belonged to her.
I bet if Duchess, Louise, Anyanka and Sharon were to get this latest fruitloop in a room,that within minutes he would be quaking in his boots, and retracting his crackpot idea quickly enough..
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
2:24 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Claire has written about the Bisley Boy here (http://www.elizabethfiles.com/…..-boy/3255/)
It’s a story that Bram Stoker wrote about..shame that Sherlock Holmes wasn’t involved..
It's always bunnies.
2:27 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Boleyn said
I bet if Duchess, Louise, Anyanka and Sharon were to get this latest fruitloop in a room,that within minutes he would be quaking in his boots, and retracting his crackpot idea quickly enough..
FWIW.. as a Vengance Demon, I don’t actually need to be in the same room…
It's always bunnies.
7:49 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Here we go again with, “But it’s only fiction.”
Boleyn, What is a boffin?
There seems to be a lot of animosity toward Elizabeth lately.
It seems that it is still difficult for people to accept the fact that an unmarried woman ruled England for 45 years and ruled it as well as any man/king.
2:41 am
May 3, 2013
Offline
Maybe we’re being thrown by the sexism angle. Yes, it’s arguably the most likely reason for this theory’s invention but, having read so many improbable and horribly-biased stories told & written by pro and anti-Protestant propagandists during the Tudor period, I wonder if this is more of the same. As far as I know, the main players were considered Protestants (Ashley, Parry, Elizabeth etc etc); perhaps the Bisley Boy legend was originally meant to “smear” the Queen and her intimates?
10:21 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Sharon, a boffin is a clever professory computery type person. ‘James Bond’s ‘Q’ was a boffin. They are usually male. So I must now tell you all that the boffin’s got it completely wrong about Elizabeth. In fact she was originally replaced with a monkey and it was only when that didn’t work that she was replaced with the next best thing….a man!
3:23 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
SteveJ said
Maybe we’re being thrown by the sexism angle. Yes, it’s arguably the most likely reason for this theory’s invention but, having read so many improbable and horribly-biased stories told & written by pro and anti-Protestant propagandists during the Tudor period, I wonder if this is more of the same. As far as I know, the main players were considered Protestants (Ashley, Parry, Elizabeth etc etc); perhaps the Bisley Boy legend was originally meant to “smear” the Queen and her intimates?
I think that’s very likely.
3:44 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
The trouble with Boffins is that they cannot or will not except that a woman is just as clever at doing things than a man.
Louise I wonder how the critics would view a female Q in the James Bond Films?
It makes me laugh that even today there are some men who show an almost contemptable and chauvienist attitude towards woman, and especially towards Elizabeth. They simply cannot get their head round the fact that a woman ruled a country and brought England great wealth, properity and peace. Something which they believe only a man could do.
Hence the reason to why we get this little fantasy stories made up every so often it basically makes them feel good.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
4:57 pm
May 3, 2013
Offline
As an aside, authors often quote Sir Robert Tyrwhitt’s famous remarks (below), but altogether omit their context; surely Tyrwhitt was alluding to the ‘secret promise’ regarding the truth about the alleged flirtation between Thomas Seymour & Elizabeth, and not some greater secret?
“I do verily believe that there hath been some secret promise between my Lady, Mistress Ashley, and the Cofferer Sir Thomas Parry never to confess to death, and if it be so, it will never be gotten of her, unless by the King’s Majesty or else by your Grace.”
6:30 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Louise said
SteveJ said
Maybe we’re being thrown by the sexism angle. Yes, it’s arguably the most likely reason for this theory’s invention but, having read so many improbable and horribly-biased stories told & written by pro and anti-Protestant propagandists during the Tudor period, I wonder if this is more of the same. As far as I know, the main players were considered Protestants (Ashley, Parry, Elizabeth etc etc); perhaps the Bisley Boy legend was originally meant to “smear” the Queen and her intimates?
I think that’s very likely.
Yes, I agree.
6:55 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Here is an interview with the author on MSNBC. I could not believe they gave this guy a minute. One of the reporters is British. Katty Kay.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036…..9#52166189
Henry had an illegitimate grandson? 
The reporter was upset a bit, but unfortunately, she didn’t really argue with this guy.
Boleyn, we would have cleaned his clock!
7:23 pm
May 3, 2013
Offline
I don’t hold out great hopes for this Dan Brown-a-like novel, judging by its premise: the cast list includes the FBI, CIA, Lollards, Mossad, MI5, MI6, MI7½, B&Q, ninjas, Templars, the Yakuza, Nazis, Opus Dei, Open University, Loose Women etc etc. Apparently the story ends with Rodrigo Borgia driving the Princess Elizabeth to safety in his double decker bus while Mata Hari & Scaramanga shoot at them from their motorbike & sidecar.
8:56 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Sharon said
Here is an interview with the author on MSNBC. I could not believe they gave this guy a minute. One of the reporters is British. Katty Kay.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036…..9#52166189
Henry had an illegitimate grandson?
The reporter was upset a bit, but unfortunately, she didn’t really argue with this guy.
Boleyn, we would have cleaned his clock!
What a complete pillock this bloke is..
He said in the interview that people can have some fun with his novel.. I know exactly what fun I could have with it. LOL, and it would certainly give me a great deal of satisfaction.
Bram Stoker was a complete fruitloop, that was well known. He may have written one of the most iconic books ever written but he was extremely mentally unstable.
Henry’s grandson indeed and just whose child was it then? Yes we all know Henry had mistresses, this supposed Grandchild would have had to been born around the time of Elizabeth’s own birth, Many of Henry’s mistresses at that time would possibly be past childbearing. It could of course been Fitzroy’s child but would he be capable? I somehow doubt it.
The blokes story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. I bet if a hungry cannibal cracked this guy’s head open there wouldn’t be enough inside to fill a small water biscuit.
Far from cleaning his clock Sharon I wouuld have scrubbed the floor with him too, and then flushed what was left down the toilet.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
4:52 pm
May 3, 2013
Offline
As I mentioned earlier, I don’t really believe in the Bisley Boy story but rather view it as an effort to discredit the Queen, her confidantes & their religious beliefs; this effort, I believe, extended right up until the Victorian clergyman Thomas Keble’s alleged discovery of a stone coffin at Overcourt. There now follows a brief summary of my ill-thought-out, crackpot theory; please feel free to laugh…a lot:
Steve’s Ill-thought-out, Crackpot Theory
The Keble family (by which I mean John snr, John and his brother Thomas) were, in my opinion, Catholics in the guise of Anglicans. John jnr was the author of the acclaimed Assize Sermon aka “National Apostasy” speech, the deliverance of which was hailed by John Henry Newman & others as the founding oration of the Oxford Movement. In brief, the adherents of this Movement “argued for the reinstatement of lost Christian (read: Catholic) traditions of faith and their inclusion into Anglican liturgy and theology. They conceived of the Anglican Church as one of three branches of the Catholic Church.” Newman himself famously became a Catholic convert and, later, a Cardinal. Keble’s words on the subject of the Church’s eternal precedence & spiritual authority arguably carries echoes of Sir Thomas More’s trial speech:
“Christ’s Holy Catholic Church is a real outward visible body, having supernatural grace continually communicated through it by succession from the Apostles, in whose place the bishops are.”
(Sermons Occasional and Parochial by John Keble)
Both John and Thomas had “issues” with the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, established during Elizabeth I’s reign by Anne Boleyn’s evangelical chaplain Matthew Parker. Thomas, writing under his “Richard Nelson” pseudonym, argued in the Oxford Movement’s Tracts for the Times that the Athanasian Creed section of the Thirty-Nine Articles should neither be omitted nor turned into “easy reading” for the more frivolous Christian; the fierce and frightening “hellfire” nature of the Creed should, in Keble’s view, remain untouched:
“And if the Church or her Ministers through like false pity should no longer endure to hold out to our consciences the terrors of the LORD, we of the people shall no doubt have cause to lament their mistaken tenderness.”
(Tracts for the Times: Number 22)
There is far more I could add but you’re probably already asleep. Suffice to say, I find it suggestive that a man like Thomas Keble should knowingly make himself party to a legend which casts doubt on the great national myth of “Gloriana”. As I hinted, this pet theory of mine needn’t be taken too seriously; though, like the Bisley Boy story itself, the theory is intriguing if nothing else. And, similarly, it’s likely a blind alley of merely possible connections, allusions (mainly literary, from Spenser to Wilde and beyond), cryptic hints and knowing winks; in short, the stuff of legend but not truth…
“Since, from myself, another self I turned.”
(extract from On Monsieur’s Departure, a poem by Queen Elizabeth I)
“Dear Madam, think me not to blame;
Invisible the fairy came.
Your precious babe is hence conveyed,
And in its place a changeling laid.
Where are the father’s mouth and nose,
The mother’s eyes as black as sloes?”
(extract from A Reputed Changeling, a novel by by Charlotte M. Yonge, friend of John and Thomas Keble)
“It was in this very room, she remembered, that Queen Elizabeth had stood astride the fireplace with a flagon of beer in her hand, which she suddenly dashed on the table when Lord Burghley tactlessly used the imperative instead of the subjunctive. ‘Little man, little man,’— Orlando could hear her say —’is “must” a word to be addressed to princes?’”
(Orlando by Virginia Woolf)
6:19 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Steve J Elizabeth also told by her councillers that she must marry and produce an heir to which she replied “If I had been born crested instead of cloven you would have never dared speak to me thus” A somewhat coarse (given the times) reference to her sex..
Elizabeth had a very firey nature, but at least she got the respect she deserved.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
6:27 pm
May 3, 2013
Offline
Yes, Boleyn, she was an absolutely amazing woman & more than a match for her courtiers. A curious and disappointing thing I’ve noticed (and I trust that other members of the forum have too): not a few modern female writers & historians implicitly – perhaps even unknowingly – “support” the sexism which was particularly rampant in the Tudor era. This is, as I wrote, disappointing; I’ve even read female authors lament, in sympathy with Elizabeth’s counsellors, her supposed indecisiveness…blissfully ignorant of what may be the actual truth: the Queen often used this “indecisiveness” as a tactic.
7:22 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
SteveJ said
Yes, Boleyn, she was an absolutely amazing woman & more than a match for her courtiers. A curious and disappointing thing I’ve noticed (and I trust that other members of the forum have too): not a few modern female writers & historians implicitly – perhaps even unknowingly – “support” the sexism which was particularly rampant in the Tudor era. This is, as I wrote, disappointing; I’ve even read female authors lament, in sympathy with Elizabeth’s counsellors, her supposed indecisiveness…blissfully ignorant of what may be the actual truth: the Queen often used this “indecisiveness” as a tactic.
So true, Steve and Boleyn. I think she was always one step ahead of those councilors of hers. And as far as the women were concerned, she left them in her dust. I think her indecisiveness was her way of eventually winning the argument. In the end she always won. I have always admired Elizabeth. She was one of my first heroines. It is simply amazing what she accomplished in her lifetime.
9:50 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
Confession time, I had no idea a novel sparked this current debate. I honestly thought it was a biography/historical book that had started the controversy. That will teach me to assume and actually read entire articles. LOL. I have read 2 of the author’s novels – The Romanov Phophecy and The Amber Room. They were quite good thrillers, that gave an insight into a world I wasn’t overly familiar with (especially The Amber Room). And while both stories presented a possible ‘solution’ to the mystery the whole book was fantastical enough that in the end I knew that it couldn’t be fact. I have faith that the book won’t cause a new conspiracy trend to appear concerning Elizabeth I because his stories are usually just that little bit too far fetched to be believable – well of the two I read anyway.
He has written oodles of books based on conspiracy with the character Cotton Malone and none of them has caused a crze, so hpefully this has all just been a publicity campaign to get the British interested in his books (hsi books are very American centric). I now admit I’d be interested in reading the novel now that I knwo it is a piece of fiction. Much like how I watched Anonymous knowing it was a load of bollocks.
11:23 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Sharon said
SteveJ said
Yes, Boleyn, she was an absolutely amazing woman & more than a match for her courtiers. A curious and disappointing thing I’ve noticed (and I trust that other members of the forum have too): not a few modern female writers & historians implicitly – perhaps even unknowingly – “support” the sexism which was particularly rampant in the Tudor era. This is, as I wrote, disappointing; I’ve even read female authors lament, in sympathy with Elizabeth’s counsellors, her supposed indecisiveness…blissfully ignorant of what may be the actual truth: the Queen often used this “indecisiveness” as a tactic.
So true, Steve and Boleyn. I think she was always one step ahead of those councilors of hers. And as far as the women were concerned, she left them in her dust. I think her indecisiveness was her way of eventually winning the argument. In the end she always won. I have always admired Elizabeth. She was one of my first heroines. It is simply amazing what she accomplished in her lifetime.
I think Elizabeth must have learnt at a very early age how indecisivness, could be used to an advantage. Her councillers for instance pleaded with her almost from the time that Mary QOS came over the border for her to kill her, and yet she pretended to consider their advice but in the end didn’t follow it. If you have a look at her sister Mary’s reign although we all know that Mary was determined to drag England back to Rome kicking and screaming all the way. Mary may have signed the death warrants but it was her male councillors etc who actually chose (for want of a better word) who were going to die. As a result of their actions Mary got the moniker Bloody Mary, she was blamed for what the men in her court had done, because she had allowed them to rule her.
So Elizabeth was determined from her youth, and more so when she became Queen that no man will tell her what do. She would be both King and Queen. Elizabeth had style, and she would reduce even the biggest and bravest men in the country into a quivering mass of jelly in some court. She was completely dominant over all of the men in her court.
I agree Sharon Elizabeth was a formidable woman. If you think about it Elizabeth was in a way a pioneer for the rights of woman. She showed the male dominated world, that woman are just as good as men, and showed the woman, that there was more to their own lives than being chained to a bed and having babies, they could have say in what they wanted, not to be just a object which could be bought and sold as a man saw fit.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
