The Virgin Queen Was Actually A Man Named Neville

Hold onto your hats British historians, we have a new theory on why Elizabeth I never married. It seems she was a he . Yep , a case of … OMG the Princess (Anne Boleyn’s kid) has died of a friggin fever  and Henry VIII (the king who beheads on a whim) is on his way for a visit, quick find someone to stand in for her. That was the dilemma facing Elizabeth’s governess, Lady Kat Ashley, and her guardian, Thomas Parry. Poor bastards. In a desperate attempt to save their heads they came up with a plan, find a stand in. Unfortunately they couldn’t find a girl matching Elizabeth’s description or age … but there was Neville, a gawky, angular kid who could pass as a girl. So rather than face the wrath and erratic behaviour  of Henry VIII they put the boy in the dead princess’s clothes and prayed the fat old man wouldn’t notice. The plan worked and Neville spent the rest of his life as a Queen. To avoid the whole marriage and heir issue, Elizabeth spent her life starting wars and proclaiming she was married to her country.  She disguised her masculine features with heavy make-up, wigs and high neck collars. The Virgin Queen is buried  in Westminster Abbey and a simple little  test could determine the truth about Elizabeth I .

Painting of Elizbeth I painted in the 1590s

Painting of Elizbeth I painted in the 1590s

Want sauce with that?

11 Comments

Filed under Thanks For Nothing, Well I Never

11 responses to “The Virgin Queen Was Actually A Man Named Neville

  1. Binky

    It’s an old rumor, but DNA testing would certainly be interesting.

  2. The painting has captured the 5 o’clock shadow brilliantly. I’m rather taken by this , must be the Celt in me I suppose lol.

  3. But didn’t she have lovers?

  4. She does look rather masculine in that picture, but to be fair no one looks good without eyebrow.

  5. Depends what state you live in lol

  6. Very Pope Joan ish…lol ….

  7. Hello loons, who is called Neville in the 1500′s for crying out loud????

  8. It might have been his surname so in that case 1450s

  9. That’s certainly worthy of ‘The Royal… WHAT?!?!’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s