My mother told me that when she was in highschool, there was some speculation among historians that Queen Elizabeth Tudor might have been a man. I think it's disproved now (I don't believe it), but I wanted to know if anyone else had ever heard of this.

I had heard something about one of the Pope's possibly being a woman....but I think that has since been disproved (???), but I had never heard it of a queen.....wouldn't you rather be a king.

Although, I suppose technically, if a king was to dress as a woman, he'd be a queen anyway, right?

Since Elizabeth's father was so desperate to have a boy that he went around chopping his wives' heads off - I doubt that if Elizabeth was really a boy he would have had any reason to hide the fact!!

PS...I'm sure these rumours only arose because lots of insecure old fuddy-duddy historians - (I'm allowed to say this because I have a history degree!) - couldn't cope with the fact that ERI was a strong, successful female leader!

PPS...Tanzen, that was truly pathetic

I know! I know!

...but it had to be done!

Sorry I didn't make all the facts clear-the theory was that her male cousin was at the same palace she was at when they were both babies, and Elizabeth died. The nursemaid supposedly covered it up. The evidence to support this was that she never undressed except in front of this old nursemaid. Of course, she was probably just modest.

Thousands of sites on the female pope.

Tanzen, I loved it

Lizzie, you da man!

Maynooth

That's what I'm here for!

Interesting, but---I just can't buy it. I really think the Queen of England would have HAD to have so very many ladies in waiting, etc., that if this were so, it would have come out at the time.

But then, I'm pretty sure Shakespeare wrote his own plays, too!

I don't know about Liz, but I do know this: historians are now coming around to the view that Henry V was in fact himself of the male gender. Evidence includes these compelling facts: 1) In his St. Crispin's day speech before the Battle of Agincourt, Henry referred to "we few, we happy few, we band of (note gender-specific terminology here) brothers", and 2) In that movie, he was played by Kenneth Branagh -- a guy -- and not by that horse-faced Emma Thompson.

Re: "Interesting, but---I just can't buy it. I really think the Queen of England would have HAD to have so very many ladies in waiting, etc., that if this were so, it would have come out at the time".

Not necessarily! I know this is digressing a bit, but take the case of James Barry. James Barry was the first known female medical graduate in the United Kingdom. At the age of 15 she passed herself off as a male to get into medical school where she graduated at the age of 20. She joined the army, managed to avoid the physical examination and distinguished herself at the Battle of Waterloo. When she eventually died at the age of 71, they found on the bedpost the sheet she had worn to flatten her breasts. Her valet had served her for 40 years but never suspected. After her death, it was discovered that not only was James Barry a woman but one that had borne a child. The army authorities continued the deception and her tombstone and death certificate labelled her a male. But eventually the truth came out.

I don't believe Elizabeth 1 was a male but I can believe it COULD have happened!

Yes, Mother Goose, I'm aware that there have been some famous cases of women choosing to live as men---but they weren't royalty! James Barry didn't have to deal with hordes of servant, etc., tending to his---er, her!---intimate functions. And had Elizabeth been born male, why on EARTH was she named Elizabeth??? All kings need and want heirs, and Henry especially needed and wanted a son.

Elizabeth might have WANTED to be a man---she never married, and very well could have been a lesbian. But being brought up in the sort of public scrutiny any royal figure undergos, she would neve have had the opportunity that James Barry did, to disappear from her old life and start a new one as a member of the opposite sex.

I'm sticking to my theory that it was a notion started by men who can't/couldn't cope with the idea of a woman not only being a strong intelligent leader - but also seemingly uninterested in 'marital relations' and being a mother. There's still a lot of 21st century men who are uncomfortable with a woman like that

Elizabeth I did not get married, but she did engage in "frolic" with more than one man. I'm not saying she wasn't a virgin, but she did some rolling around with a guy or two. I think Thomas Seymour would have noticed something amiss when he came into her bedroom and tickled and wrestled with her (when she was 14) while she was still in her night clothes.

I'm with ladyejayne...

Also, about the story of Elizabeth dying and being replcade by a male cousin. What would anyone have had to gain from this? I think if Elizabeth had died, Henry wouldn't replace his daughter with a son. After all, she had at least one step-mother who hated her, Mary hated her, etc. Back in that time, it wasn't unheard of for children to die - even royal children. I could see a male dying and being replaced by a female cousin, but ther'd be nothing to be gained form the opposite.

Edit to add: Ok, I thought of one thing to be gained - the ability to marry of your offspring and create a new alliance with another country (Spain? Portugal? France? etc.) But I still don't see him covering up a male child for a female one.

Ladymacb, which stepmother hated her? I know Anne Boleyn hated her stepdaughter, Mary, but I thought Henry's 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th wives all liked Elizabeth.

Oh God, you're going to make me go find that book, aren't you? Actually, I don't remember which book... I was on an Elizabeth biography mood about a year ago and read about 5 books...

That would be Catherine of Aragon, who was Mary's mother.

I don't know is it was Elizabeth, but I have heard that some queen was actually a man.

The rumours have included all manner of strong female leaders
of the queens Catherine the Great (Russia), Queen Christina (Sweden) Catherine de Medici and Boudicca (Boadicea) have all been traduced.

I seriously doubt that Elizabeth I was a boy. I mean, people would have noticed .

etar - (for the sake of argument, I still totally believe Elizabeth was a woman) how would they have noticed? She never married, never produced children, women's fashions had so many layers you wouldn't be able to tell if she had male sexual organs, etc. Only the closest few people would have been able to know, and had those few people told... well, let's just say they'd get a Tudor haircut real quick.

The idea that Elizabeth I was a male is total hogwash! While Henry VIII most probably DID marry Elizabeth's mother, Anne Boleyn, for love, he most definately married her in secret in December of 1532, before his marriage to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, in order that Anne's as-yet-inborn child could be considered legitimate---Henry REALLY wanted an heir, and a son most of all.

After Catherine's marriage was annuled, he re-married Anne Boleyn, and Elizabeth was born on September 7th, 1533. Had she BEEN a son, why on earth would ANYONE in the royal family concealed it?

That aside, Elizabeth lived seventy years, and ruled England for forty-four years---but didn't take the throne until after the deaths of both her older sister Mary and her younger brother, Edward. If Elizabeth HAD been a male, she would have been first in line to succeed Henry, not third---if she wanted to rule AT ALL, why would she/he have concealed his/her sexuality? Why not speak out as soon as Henry died, and take the throne immediately?

I can't imagine any royal personage living thru 70 years of handmaidens without someone noticing razor stubble. (*grin*)

Tudor times have always been of great interest to me and in all that I have read nothing has been said about her being a man.

MsBatt - Do you mean Henry married Anne before his marriage to Katherine or before he divorced her? Henry married Katherine of Aragon in 1509 and divorced her in 1533 just in time to marry Anne to legitamise Elizabeth's birth.He could not have married Anne before Katherine. Anne would have only been about 8 years old at the time of Henry and Katherine's marriage.

Sorry, I meant to say he married Anne before his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was annuled---I left out two very important words, and didn't catch it when I did my idiot check. (*grin*)