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 king’s arrival, his favourite daughter, the only child of his marriage to Anne Boleyn, had been dangerously ill. In the morning, Elizabeth lay dead.
Elizabeth’s 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 Henry’s 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 England’s 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 ...
A good read for those of us interested in Historical conspiracy.
Nothing about this theory stands up to a moment’s scrutiny.
This is an interesting article.
You read the entire article in 1 minute and 5 seconds?
Sounds like lefties are desperate to find transgenders to add to their revisionist history books. Can’t find one then make one like they tried to do to Lincoln.
Hard to say as most English women look like guys in drag ;)
I’m not so sure about that. The story has been around for almost two hundred years. I think that it is possible. It is also possible that Elizabeth was just gay, rigidly so.
No, they don't. English girls are among the world's most beautiful.
Bunch of hooey.
The portraits in the article are very revealing...
I had to read this article twice because at first I thought it was about MOOOOchelle.
“Sounds like lefties are desperate to find transgenders to add to their revisionist history books. Can’t find one then make one like they tried to do to Lincoln.”
You have a point but an unmarried head of state in that age, I think not. My guess, she was a hermaphrodite.
Yeah, you tell 'em, Feej.
I’ve never understood why people don’t immediately understand why Elizabeth I didn’t want to marry. She was very, very smart, and she knew that marrying anyone at all would have had her playing second banana to him — or else it would have been a constant source of friction (both political and personal) if she *didn’t* play second banana to him. She didn’t have to be gay to want to avoid marriage.
Did you read it? There are no transgendered people in the story I just read. It’s about a deception.
Agreed
Well, this will rile ‘em up. So much easier to believe QEI was a drag queen (LOL), than to accept the “Free World” is being led by a communist invention.
“English girls are among the world’s most beautiful.”
They are indeed.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.