Queen Elizabeth L portrays as trans in new ITV show

[LeftBoobGoneRogue]

I have not seen another thread about this so far. I was really annoyed to read about this. Is nothing sacred?
https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/claiming-elizabeth-trans-misogyny-cloaked-165259912.html

Not an April Fool, then?

I suggest we all simply ignore it and don’t give it publicity or watch it

🤦‍♀️

I was annoyed too. It has been bandied about as a theory as to why she didn’t have any romantic relationships but it just seems like hopping on the bandwagon. I’d rather the story was the other theory that she died as a child and was replaced with a local boy who looked like her.

Maybe, but it’s also reported in the Sun, Mail, GB News, Express and TVGuide so unless they are all in on the April Fool.

I AM SO SICK OF THIS SHIT

Completely beyond any willingness to even have a discussion about it. I just want the world to stop taking the piss out of women.

Looks like old news:

https://theknowledgeonline.com/news/itv-orders-tudor-drama-from-mr-bates-director

And yet the Telegraph ran the story this morning? 🤔

I did see it but didn't post because if you read the article listed in the OP it makes it quite clear no one believes this and is based on "Bisley Boy, largely created in 1901 by the author Bram Stoker, and as reality-based as his tale of the vampire Dracula" whose sexism means he couldn't believe a woman could be clever, etc..

I think the article makes this clear this is just nonsense et:

" ... it leans into a very real and contemporary political trend: the urge amongst so-called progressives to take stories of female role models and rebrand them as trans narratives.

James Strong, the show’s producer, calls this a story “that feels modern and relevant to today’s viewer.” Because there’s nothing “modern and relevant” about a story of female survival when it could be replaced with a Victorian yarn about male achievement. ... "

Although admit that many will just consume it as being "real" as we know that not just the media but too many have taken on the trans narrative as the narrative.

Beat me to the bigly rant 😁

It reminds me of the Mormons who baptise people who are long dead retrospectively and claim them for their religion. Totally loco 🤣

I do a lot of family history research and I've been quite angry that some people have wrongly added some of our ancestors to their family trees and baptised them even though they have absolutely no connection with their family or the Mormons.

This theory makes no sense at all. If Elizabeth I was male it would have been shouted from the rooftops at the time of her birth.

Yup.

The Telegraph has an article

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/01/claiming-elizabeth-i-was-trans-is-misogyny/

But I can't archive it, so I've not been able to read it. I honestly hoped it was an April Fool.

Honestly!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes wonder on threads whether having an OP with a link to a newspaper article is worth doing.

First of all the article in the OP is the Telegraph article.

Secondly, as I pointed out up thread the article makes clear this is a piss take.

This is just pumping out trendy tv because not just the tv channels but sadly much of the population thinks being trans friendly shows how up to date you are.

It is, at best, artistic licence, using a discredited Bram Stoker story for no other reason than to make money.

Its not claiming too be an historical documentary.

It is like the Other Bennet Sister which shows London in the early part of the 19th century to be happily multi-racial.

Oooooo I love a “was elizabeth I a man” thread. It gives me the opportunity to mention our local folklore.

Apparently Henry VIII was on a hunting trip in our local forest and brought baby Elizabeth with him. Sadly the young princess died and the only red head headed baby the villagers could find was a a boy. So they did a swap!

This story has been going around here for many many years!!

Me too, utterly sick of this woman hating shit. We are being gaslit, told that any woman who achieved anything must have really been a man. It's as if Women's Liberation movement never happened. 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of these idiots that, if Queen Elizabeth had been a boy, there would have been no need for Henry VIII to get rid of Anne Boleyn in his desperation to sire an heir.

As always so superficial knowledge of her history, her context, the events that formed her decisions, the political backdrop. History by someone who once saw a few minutes of a tabloid type thing on telly, and misogyny by those who see women only relevant in how they can be used to serve the gender ideology. Stripped of all her depth and everything else unusual and remarkable about her, to fit her in a box. The tabloid wittering of the bloody stupid.

Also total oblivion to the other women in much the same terrible position by being alive and female while in possession of royal blood that meant they were an ambitious man/ group's way to the throne.

Margaret de la Pole, who managed a full but awful life. Jane Grey's sisters, who had to be kept close because of the risk they posed by living, because of their biology - marriageable and possible mothers of an heir to confuse the succession further. And Margaret's brother whose risk was immediate through being male, and who was executed. It's like binary biology was a massive defining feature and everybody knew it. No cheek swabs needed, no checking on whether the skirts were spinny.

Entirely beside the point but that's given me a mental image of a cartwheel farthingale that is an actual wheel, so the skirt could be spun independently of the dress. You'd be the sensation of the court.

Or why would Edward have been King first? So pig ignorant.

If Elizabeth I was male it would have been shouted from the rooftops at the time of her birth.

Yes, obviously! Henry VIII got through six wives in his desperation to get a male ‘heir and a spare’. His only son died young, as did Henry’s own older brother.

As PP have said, this is just a continuation of the old male-supremacist dogma that women are useless.

Blackadder did it better:

Nursie recalls the birth of Queenie, exclaiming: "A boy without a winkle? God be praised, it is a miracle. A boy without a winkle!".

She did have romantic relationships. Possibly with the Earl of Essex and certainly with Robert Dudley. It is patently obvious why she did not marry. She couldn't. In the Royal pecking order at the time, a king was superior to a queen. Since she could not marry a commoner, suggested marriages, to scions of the royal houses of Europe would have rendered her junior to her husband and made England a vassal state. This is why, today, the wife of a male momarch is Queen, but if the monarch is female, her husband is Prince Consort.

So interesting. It hadn't clicked.