Elizabeth I Will be Transgender in ITV Drama
Elizabeth I will be portrayed as transgender in a forthcoming ITV drama in a move critics have branded a “sexist” attempt to write strong women out of history. The Telegraph has more.
The Tudor queen, who never married and established England as a rising imperial power, will be shown as a biological man in the six-part series next year.
The independence of the ‘Virgin Queen’, who ruled from 1558 to 1603 and defeated the Spanish Armada, has given rise to improbable conspiracies that she was a man masquerading as a woman.
Claims of her being a trans woman will be a central focus of the new series, titled Majesty, in which the monarch will be played by a transgender ‘woman’, according to reports.
ITV said the drama was “far from being a historical account” and was an “intriguing reimagining of her life based upon conspiracy theories”.
Elizabeth I’s strength as ruler and decision not to marry have prompted speculation about her sexuality and gender identity. Some claim she had male pseudohermaphroditism, a condition in which an individual has testicles and female genitalia.
A 19th century theory, included by Bram Stoker in a 1910 book about “famous impostors”, held that the queen died from a fever in Bisley, Gloucestershire, at the age of nine and was replaced by a local boy who looked similar to her.
Sir Robert Cecil, her chief minister, is recorded as having said she was “more than a man, and, in truth, sometimes less than a woman”.
In 1588, as the Spanish fleet approached England, Elizabeth I told troops in Tilbury, Essex: “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king – and of a king of England, too.”
In 2022, academics working for Shakespeare’s Globe in central London said she could have been non-binary, when people believe they are neither male nor female.
Elizabeth I was presented as such in an essay published by the theatre which referred to the female monarch with the gender-neutral they/them pronouns.
Feminist thinkers have raised concerns that casting doubts on the womanhood of prominent women because they defied gender norms and did supposedly ‘manly’ things will effectively write them out of history. …
Maya Forstater, Chief Executive of Sex Matters, said the series “sounds like an April Fool’s joke”.
“The news that Queen Elizabeth I is to be portrayed as transgender in a new ITV drama sounds like an April Fool’s joke, not the basis for a six part show that people will keep watching,” she told the Telegraph.
“Some in the arts sector seem to think that portraying historical female figures such as Joan of Arc as trans-identifying is edgy, but TV viewers who are already sick of gender ideology may say ‘this is too much’ and vote with their remote.
“The sexist conspiracy theory that Elizabeth I was a man because a woman couldn’t possibly have led as she did is tired enough already.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It just shows that there’s been conspiracy theorists right throughout the ages. She can’t possibly be a real woman because she’s still single and is capable of ruling single-handedly! 😮
Or could it simply be more to do with the fact her dad had both her mother and stepmother executed? That’s bound to have a lasting impact and not exactly make her rush to marry a man who she’d have to play second fiddle to. I’m with Occam’s razor on this one. Coincidentally, Dylan Mulvaney is playing Anne Boleyn on stage. It seems with these historical figures that if they’re not ‘transing’ them they’re changing their race. Can’t move for woke garbage..
Trying to un-women famous historical women is certainly an example of misogny in my book. Or would be if this wasn’t also an example of misandry, because the implied claim is that neither a woman nor a man could have been “Elizabeth.” Misantrophy might be a better term, although this usually means something else. And decadence, obviously, in the sense of Nietzsche to whom a decadent was someone opposed to life (which includes normal biological reproduction as core component).
Also, surely if she were a man one of her many ladies-in-waiting would’ve spilled the beans somewhere along the line. After all, you couldn’t afford to be shy when you were a Queen back then, given that these ladies assisting you in the bedchamber would be required to put on all those many layers of petticoats, corsets, bloomers, you name it, these royal women were like walking onions, the amount of layering that was involved just to get them ready of a morning. Queens also didn’t even bathe themselves, so somebody would have seen Elizabeth naked on the regular.
There was also no tampons or Vanish Oxi back then, so the staff would have the lovely task of scrubbing by hand blood from undergarments every time she had her period, so the lack of bloody ‘rags’ would be sure to arouse suspicion among the servants. So it’s all a bit silly to listen to rumours that she wasn’t a woman, started by none other than the author of Dracula. I think Robert Cecil’s comment above speaks more to the fact he found her to not be your typical woman, rather than not a woman at all.
Everyone should boycott this abomination.
Alas, I have only one upvote to give you.
Agenda driven TV Drama has been on the go for ages now. —–I can think of “Amadeus” about Mozart set in 18th century Austria where there would maybe be a dozen black people in the whole country. Curiously they all seemed to appear in this series. Then you had Bridgerton (another jumble of let’s fill the screen with black people load of bilge) Can you imagine a Drama where Nelson Mandela was played by George Clooney?
This country needs seriously TRUMPED, and our ESG inspired wokery TRASHED for good.
Bring it on!
I didn’t need another reason not to watch ITV, but I have one anyway
“I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a testosterone-pumped bloke.”
“I know it looks like I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the cock and balls to prove I’m a king.”
Elizabeth was supposed to marry this or that European prince, at least one French one being among them, for political reasons at various times of her career, it just never really worked out. How was that ever supposed to happen at a time where homosexuality was considered an unpardonable sin and very severly punished? And BTW, men and women not only look but also smell very differently.
“Improbable conspiracies that she was a man masquerading as a woman…”
Indeed. Henry VIII was desperate for a male heir – nonsensical that a long-awaited son could have been christened Elizabeth and brought up as a girl.
These people don’t do sense, only propaganda, even if it’s totally absurd¹. ¹ Unrelated example: 1914 – 1916, the German general field marshall Graf (Count) v. Haeseler accompanied the German XVI. army corps whose commander he had been until 1903 while campaigning in France. I’ve recently heard to following story about him: He frequently visited the front line on horseback which regularly drew strong infantry and artillery fire. Because of this, frontline officers complained about the dangers he put them into until the current commander of the XVI corps had to prohibit these visits. The idea behind this is probably to make this guy appear stupid, reckless and possibly, also senile when he was really very brave and cared very much for the fate of ‘his’ former soldiers. The story itself is completely absurd: Fighting on the front lines had degenerated to static trench warfare and there comes this lone guy on horseback out in the open who regularly draws strong infantry and arillery fire until front-line officers complain about the dangers to them in their trenches. And yet, he always get away totally unscathed despite all this infantry and artillery were all firing at him and he was a… Read more »
New research suggests that Elizabeth I was a teapot.
New research suggests that Elizabeth I was a lizard.
And so on and on.
{sarcasm}
I have the heart and soul of a vegetarian – doesn’t work somehow.
I suspect that this load of crap will be aimed at the young teen market ie thirteen years and upwards, got to catch ’em young. Fortunately I have appointments booked which coincide with the scheduled programing times.
Just when you’re marvelling at how mad things are becoming, you get stunned by the objection to the madness itself.
The problem with portraying Elizabeth I as transgender isn’t that it’s “sexist” against women. The problem is that it’s completely mental.
But no, let’s turn it into a battle between two self-victimising groups to see which be the more aggressively self-victimising.
My money is with the so called feminists who are still fighting for equal rights in a society that already legally discriminates in their favour. They have the numbers advantage.
Isn’t it a feature of totalitarian regimes that they rewrite history to suit their own purposes? Looks like ITV might be ahead of the government on this one.
Another one to miss then.
I wonder if any company will advertise alongside this program? Name and shame?
Is it just me or does anyone else when they read or hear ‘reimagining’ think – what a load of bollocks.
It is not just you.
The only “reimaginings” I want to see are Hitler On Ice and The Jews In Space – which Mel Brooks promised he’d give us in “History of World Part II”, but then sadly never did.
Ah, I get it now. Mel Brooks is talented, that’s the decisive point. And funny. Unlike 99% of the “reimaginers”.
When I hear “reimagining” it’s always ok. How far from the English origin can they try to make it.
I thought it was an April Fool’s joke.
Yes, it’s a “reimagining” of the life of E1….but those stupid enough to still be watching contemporary dramas will take it as fact – particularly the young and impressionable. Thus the narratives of history are being changed.
If it isn’t as good as Miranda Richardson’s “Queenie” in Blackadder, this “reimagining” can go straight in the bin.
Thought this was an April 1st article!
Please, will this madness ever end.
Okay if Elizabeth was a man how come Henry was so displeased with Anne Boleyn for not providing a male heir that he had her head severed? This is just trite nonsense and poppycock. The BBC really are the pits. Off with their heads!