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

All non-conforming women must be men. It’s the only way to explain them. All women must be dolls. If you’re not a doll, you’re not a real woman.

She didn't marry because her role would have been usurped by the male. She wanted to be fully in control. Simple.

And as long as she didn't marry, she could use her single status as a negotiating chip in diplomatic relations with foreign powers. She was a very canny operator.

Basically any woman who has ever achieved anything, ever. Let men appropriate all their achievements why don’t we.

Only high born women who had their actual labour and delivery witnessed by a crowd of officials could be beyond this claim.

Grrrr!

That and add an "OFFS!" too.

Exactly. Although it was probably more like 100 years ago that it started (Lili Elbe).

Think the archive website was malfunctioning yesterday. Here’s an archived version of the Telegraph article:

https://archive.ph/xABJm

this audacious and original show to the screen. The brilliant scripts are a directors’ dream as we get to re-imagine and recreate an iconic piece of English history and tell a period story that looks stunning but also feels modern and relevant to todays’ viewer.”

AUDACIOUS
and ORIGINAL!!!

and so relevant.

No historic figure was “trans” as the concept was only invented about 50-60 years ago by men getting hormones, fake boobs & genital surgery.

Why? Is this just a tv or do some actually believe this?

lol! Some people actually believe it!

On the eve of the Spanish Armada’s failed invasion in 1588, Elizabeth famously said: “I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king.”

Male feelz - got it 😂😂😂😂

Agreed 😵‍💫I think you can give a fantasy a historical background ground but you can't give history a fantasy background, and expect to be taken as AUDACIOUS or ORIGINAL. 😂

Why would a male put on a dress and fight for their life to survive a sister Queen who they would take prominence over in the line of succession if they were male?

If they were male then their mother would have lived and produced more full blood siblings. The trans thing makes no sense on any level other than idiocy.

Or that maybe the reason Elizabeth never had a relationship was because she had to witness her father decapitating her mother because she wasn't born male. That would give anyone trust issues.

Isn't Ann Boleyn the wife that's currently being played by a man who says he's a women in a play on Broadway at the moment. Looks like the dreadful Dylan is playing the wrong royal. 😂

This isn’t a new theory it’s been about for years. I’ve always been pissed off by it because before trans was current it was framed that she must have secretly been a man because a woman could not have ruled so well.

I agree with those saying she probably never got married because of what she experienced as a child. Her sister married and was then subject to her husband, back then for Elizabeth to have married would have meant handing power to her husband as wife’s were subject of their husbands. I believe she did it for her country, it was the best she could do in the times she lived. Trans is of our time and history should not be edited to fit with how people think today

Tiresome.

She knew her power and autonomy would be diminished by marriage, she would have been second fiddle to her own husband despite her being the hereditary monarch. And I imagine she saw what happened to Mary Queen of Scots when she married Lord Darnley. Who wouldn’t look at that and think, “Bugger that for a lark”?

As for this “Queen Elizabeth as trans” nonsense, I’m going to have to order more eye rolls because I’m now RIGHT OUT.

I agree, I was listening to a podcast that talked about it, especially how problematic Mary 1 marriage had been. Even Queen Jane(Jane Grey) held firm against making her husband king.

And tedious

I saw the casting call a few weeks ago and thought how fucking tedious that historical strong women have to be transed, because women can’t be, you know, WOMEN.

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

No bloke is coming out with that.

Do we know, is it actually going to depict Elizabeth's life and reign but show her as being male?
Or is it based on Bram Stoker's idea and is thus going to show him being pompous, misogynistic, laughing at the idea of a woman being monarch etc?
If the former, I wonder how they'll deal with the fact that she was washed and dressed by servants, probably had a woman who slept in or by her bed, had her
bedsheets changed (and examined) by servants and her periods attended to etc?

The casting call describes it as ‘an emotional and funny alternative history that takes place in the time of the Tudor court’ and expressly asks for applications from actors who identify as ‘transgender women’.