Bram Stoker
Do you love conspiracy theories?! Did you know of the conspiracy theory relating to Elizabeth I?
There are those who believe Elizabeth was a man - it is a fascinating story.
Bram Stoker and Bisley
The theory has its roots in the writings of Bram Stoker, the famous writer of the Gothic novel Dracula.Stoker was not a mere author but also the personal assistant of the actor Henry Irving who had been looking for a house in the Cotswolds in Gloucestershire, England in the village of Bisley. There Irving came across the legend of “The Bisley Boy” and passed the story on to Stoker who was keen to investigate.
Both Stoker and Irving were intrigued that the village’s May Day celebrations involved a boy May Queen dressed in Elizabethan costume. Such traditions are generally based on an historical event or legend and Stoker wanted to find out more about this one – why a male Queen? His digging resulted in a chapter of his book “Famous Imposters” devoted to “The Bisley Boy”.
Read the story of The Bisley Boy legend in Bram Stoker’s “Famous Imposters” online at Internet Archive or downloaded at EbooksRead.com. A synopsis of the story and why some have given credence to this conspiracy theory is below – Stoker seemed convinced of it!
The Bisley Boy Legend
The Story
According to legend, Princess Elizabeth or rather the Lady Elizabeth was sent to Overcourt House in Bisley around 1543 or 1544 to escape London, where the plague was rife and to enjoy the Cotswold country air. Unfortunately disaster struck and the ten year old princess was taken ill. As the princess lay gravely ill, her governess received word that the King was on his way to visit his daughter and while the house prepared for the royal visit, the princess died from acute fever. What on earth could the governess do? The King was famous for his temper and rages and the child’s governess was in despair and complete panic – how could she tell the King of the death of his daughter?
Bisley, Gloucestershire
Fearing for her life, the governess searched the local village for a suitable girl to replace Elizabeth and so delay the bad news, to hide Elizabeth’s body and tell the King on a later date. Her search was futile, no girl of the right age and colouring was found but suddenly a thought struck her, there was a fair, red headed boy, an actual playmate of the princess. He was a pretty boy of the right colouring and close at hand. In desperation, the governess dressed him in the princess’s dress and the deception began.
According to legend, the King, who did not frequently visit his daughter, did not notice the substitution, after all, Elizabeth had always been wary of him and he was in rather a hurry any way. The plan worked and worked so well that the King was never told the truth and Elizabeth’s body was never moved from the stone coffin in the garden at Overcourt where it had initially been hidden. Over three hundred years later, the Reverend Thomas Keble told his family of the discovery of the remains of a girl’s body in a stone coffin at Overcourt while building work was being carried out at the manor house. The remains included rags of fine, Tudor style clothing – cue “Twilight Zone” music!!
The Reasons Stoker Gave it Credence
Well, you can be forgiven for calling this story”tommyrot”, which is what The New York Times said of it in in its 1911 review of Stoker’s book, but here are some of the reasons why Stoker gave it so much credence:-- Elizabeth’s secretive nature – Her actions during her lifetime seemed to suggest, according to Stoker, that she had a closely guarded secret. Sir Robert Tyrwhitt wrote to Protector Somerset in 1549: “I do verily believe that there hath been some secret promise between my Lady, Mistress Ashley [Elizabeth's governess] and the Cofferer [Sir Thomas Parry] never to confess to death. “
- Elizabeth’s close relationship with Kat Ashley, Thomas Parry and Blanche Parry – She treated them all with favour and kept them close to her.
- Elizabeth’s refusal to marry
- Rumours that Elizabeth could not bear children – In April 1559, when Elizabeth was only 25, the Count de Feria wrote: “If my spies do not lie, which I believe they do not, for a certain reason which they have recently given me, I understand that she [Elizabeth] will not bear children.”
- A significant change in literary style between the letters Elizabeth wrote Catherine Parr in 1543 and 1544.
- Roger Ascham’s warning in one letter to Kat Ashley not to be too
zealous in her teaching of Elizabeth and to go slowly and then a later
letter written by Roger Ascham to John Sturmius, Rector of the
Protestant University of Strasbourg in 1550 where he writes: The
constitution of her mind is exempt from female weakness, and she is
endued with a masculine power of application. No apprehension can be
quicker than hers, no memory
more retentive. French and Italian she speaks like English; Latin with fluency, propriety and judgment; she also spoke Greek with me, frequently, willingly, and understanding well. Nothing can be more elegant than her handwriting, whether in the Greek or Roman character. In music she is very skillful but does not greatly delight. With respect to personal decoration, she greatly prefers a simple elegance to show and splendour, so despising the outward adorning of plaiting the hair and of wearing of gold, that in the whole manner of her life she rather resembles Hippolyta than Phaedra.” - Catherine Parr’s encouragement of the “horseplay” between her husband, Thomas Seymour, and Elizabeth – Did she know that Elizabeth was a boy and this was her idea of revenge on her husband?
- Elizabeth’s huge stock of wigs – Were they to cover male baldness?
- Elizabeth’s refusal to see other doctors – Stoker cites the occasion when Elizabeth was ill during her house arrest at Woodstock. Apparently, Elizabeth’s usual physicians were not available and Elizabeth refused to see anyone else.
Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond
Who was the Boy?
You must read Stoker’s chapter on “The Bisley Boy” to fully
understand this, it’s rather long-winded and complicated, but Stoker
believed the boy to be the Duke of Richmond’s son by Mary Howard. As the
Duke of Richmond was Henry VIII’s illegitimate son, this would explain
the boy’s colouring being similar to Elizabeth’s, the resemblance and
the intelligence.
Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond
Reasons to Discredit this Theory
As much as I love Bram Stoker, I have to say “Poppycock!” very loudly.I just cannot believe this story has any truth in it whatsoever and I think it’s just people’s attempts to try and understand how a woman can live life without sex and marriage – she must have been a man!
Here are some of my reasons for not believing:-
- Henry VIII was not thick – Surely he would have noticed a change in his daughter even if he hadn’t seen her for a while!
- Elizabeth was not bald – She chose to wear wigs for her image and then to hide her greying hair. When the Earl of Essex famously burst into her bedchamber, he saw a grey haired Elizabeth and according to courtier Rowland Whyte the Queen was “newly up, her hair about her face”.
- Elizabeth had periods – When Philip II’s emissary bribed the Queen’s laundress for details on Elizabeth’s health, the woman reported that the Queen was functioning normally, i.e. menstruating regularly.
- According to Tracy Borman, Elizabeth delighted in wearing low necklines, even into old age. If she was trying to hide a lack of breasts then this was not the way to do it!
- Puberty – Could a teenage boy really have hidden all of the changes involved in puberty?
- Robert Dudley – Whether or not you believe that Elizabeth and Dudley had an intimate relationship, surely Dudley would have noticed that she was a man. I guess you could argue that this was why they never married or why Elizabeth never got pregnant – they could have been gay lovers! – but I’m sorry, I just don’t believe that.
- The secret would have got out – As much as Stoker argues that Bisley was very cut off and that Kat Ashley and the Parrys kept this secret to their graves, I cannot believe that they could have got away with it.
- Doctors – I know Elizabeth was very fussy about her doctors but a whole panel of doctors once examined her during marriage negotiations to see if she could still bear children and they decided that she could. Wouldn’t they have noticed that she was actually a he!
Is this just a story to satisfy those who can’t believe that a woman could rule England so successfully or live without marriage and children or do you think there’s some truth in it?
I do love conspiracy theories!
No comments:
Post a Comment