UK Elizabeth I will be transgender in ITV drama

Link

Elizabeth I will be transgender in ITV drama​

IMG_6941.webp
Elizabeth I will be portrayed as transgenderin a forthcoming ITV drama.

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.

Set at the court of Henry VIII when Elizabeth was a girl, the ITV drama will be produced by Strong Film and Television.

Born in 1533, Elizabeth I became England’s longest-serving female monarch until Queen Victoria, and was famous for overseeing the emergence of the country as an international power during her 44-year reign.

James Strong, the director behind the production company, previously said the series would “re-imagine” history to make it “modern and relevant to today’s viewer”.

“The brilliant scripts are a director’s 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 today’s viewer,” he said.

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.

“Reinventing it with a new layer of transgender fantasy only adds insult to injury when women are still fighting for equal pay, and sex stereotypes are being used to promote the modern-day scandal of child gender medicine.”

The show is expected to begin filming this summer.

ITV and Strong Film and Television were approached for comment.
 
I, for one, am glad they decided to make her historically accurate. Trans women are women.

1 Apr 26
 
Incredible modern ID pol garbage. One of the few historically strong women who brought England from a massively disruptive period courtesy of her father, sickly younger brother and devout catholic older sister, and stabilized the country. Stable government, fiscal responsibility etc - long term stability under her rule, and in an era where there was a genuine patriarchy. If you are female, you are the weaker sex, and there was massive pressure for her to produce and heir.

So of course, fuck that we are making it a troon. You can't write this.
 
I've read that Elizabeth may have actually feared infertility as Mary struggled with it and had multiple false pregnancies and likely died of uterine cancer. Her condition sounded pretty brutal. What doctors thought was a fetus was more than likely a tumor that was slowly killing her. Elizabeth was also known to have female health problems. If she had married and failed to produce an heir then died before her husband the English crown could end up in shaky territory again. The War of the Roses didn't end that long ago. England didn't need another one.

If Elizabeth had been born with a penis Henry would have been thrilled. Absolutely no way she'd be raised as a girl. That's insane for 16th century royalty. A male heir was really important to Henry because of what his father went through securing the crown. Henry had at least one previous son via Catherine who died in infancy after a much celebrated birth and Edward would die as a teenager.

Stuff like this just pisses me off. I know the Tudors have been done to death. But Elizabeth was not a troon. She was too cool for troons to ever aspire to be. Transwomen are not women.
 
It's not about whether the statement is true, it's about taking a big fat dump on everything your country knows and loves and flipping you the bird when you object to it.
 
Ok? We’ve had movies imagining US Presidents as vampire hunters, as long as it isn’t trying to push it as the true story but an adaptation of a fringe theory who cares?

If you give them an inch, they'll...well, they'll hang themselves in their basement before they reach the age of 30. But they'll also think they're a ruler.
 
If Elizabeth had been born with a penis Henry would have been thrilled. Absolutely no way she'd be raised as a girl. That's insane for 16th century royalty. A male heir was really important to Henry because of what his father went through securing the crown. Henry had at least one previous son via Catherine who died in infancy after a much celebrated birth and Edward would die as a teenager.
Mind you, the male heir thing was so important for Henry that modern readings of his relationship with Anne Boleyn degrading and leading to what amount to fake treason and adultery charges likely stemmed from her failing to give him a male heir, him getting attracted to Jane Seymour (one of Anne's ladies in waiting) and there is also the thought that she was also quite outspoken and intelligent - no good when he wanted a docile wife (and given how good her daughter Elizabeth was, probably right on the intelligent side).

If Elizabeth had a dick, her mother would probably have kept her head.
 
Liberal women are so close to getting it, but will never quite get there.

Oh Maya Forstater gets it. She was sacked for saying trans women are men, and Sex Matters is terf central. The first trans backlash against JK Rowling was when she tweeted support for Maya. Here they are hanging out

IMG_6321.jpeg

I've read that Elizabeth may have actually feared infertility as Mary struggled with it and had multiple false pregnancies and likely died of uterine cancer… If she had married and failed to produce an heir then died before her husband the English crown could end up in shaky territory again.

That’s an interesting thought. Her own mother’s struggles to produce a live child after her presumably would also have influenced her. Mind you, she certainly had other reasons:
  • female rule was a novelty, with Mary I as the only English model. Mary tried to co-rule with her husband. A man would expect to take control in those days. No way was Elizabeth sharing power.
  • who could she marry? To marry a subject would be to elevate him and his family in importance, which would be destabilising. To marry a foreigner could entangle England in European affairs and wars.
  • the risk of dying in childbirth without a clear heir and, as you note, the resulting instability. This was especially acute as the prime candidate to succeed was the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. War of the Roses part 2 plus a war of religion.
 
If you give them an inch, they'll...well, they'll hang themselves in their basement before they reach the age of 30. But they'll also think they're a ruler.
I dunno, I grew up with a bunch of movies taking a lot of liberties with historical figures. Bill and Ted, Jesus Christ Superstar, Braveheart, hell even like I said Shakespeare’s plays are hardly accurate depictions. So I don’t really get the hubbub now over it when it’s been a thing already. ITV even said it wasn’t meant to be historically accurate but a reimagining whatif jackoff session like Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter, it’s going to be dogshit and no one is going to watch it anyway so it isn’t worth the kvetching.

It’s more worth laughing at really because it won’t be good.
 
Ok? We’ve had movies imagining US Presidents as vampire hunters, as long as it isn’t trying to push it as the true story but an adaptation of a fringe theory who cares?
Yeah but that was a joke. These people are trying to push this as let's say speculative history.

It's the same thing with Bridgerton, where the creator had to defend her alternate history universe with 'Queen Charlotte is really a woman of colour, guys!' It's toeing the water to historical revisionism, which is something that the BBC have made policy.

That's ignoring the fact that insisting one of the most powerful female rulers of one of the most powerful maritime nations in the world was actually a dude is quite insulting to the other sex unless it's explicitly a joke.
 
That's ignoring the fact that insisting one of the most powerful female rulers of one of the most powerful maritime nations in the world was actually a dude is quite insulting to the other sex unless it's explicitly a joke.
They literally turned Jesus into a sheboon
IMG_8725.jpeg
At some point you have to stop letting them ragebait you. It’s half of why they do this shit, it sure isn’t because it is successful. It will literally fail and be forgotten the minute the anger over it dies. The more time you waste being mad at loony tards being loony the more they will do it.

I don’t know how else to explain it. If you let them know you have sacred cows you don’t want touched all they’ll do is touch the sacred cows.
 
Incredible modern ID pol garbage. One of the few historically strong women who brought England from a massively disruptive period courtesy of her father, sickly younger brother and devout catholic older sister,
Trannies hate women. It's funny because libfems pushed for more female representation and now they're losing it to even worse moids than the ones they ousted
 
I don’t know how else to explain it.
Because they're retarded, are years behind the cultural zeitgeist and have conned themselves into believing an audience exists for this rubbish.

Bait is a thing, it's true, but its for social media and vanity projects with low stakes, it's not for real companies who want to make money. But they look at their self-curated Twitter feed and think it's reality.
 
1000004675.jpg
Okay but like how? The 16th century? We don't even have the technology today to make them look like the anime children they're jerking off to. These retards really do think it's magic. Unless it comes out and she's just a hulking gigahon which would just say it all
 
Trannies hate women. It's funny because libfems pushed for more female representation and now they're losing it to even worse moids than the ones they ousted
And now if you are a feminist who doesn't want these mentally deranged men sharing your space or supplanting women in sport/activities - then "their side" eats them alive. But that's expected.
 
So one of the greatest monarchs England has ever had was actually just a pervert in drag or a retarded person of gender instead of a genuinely remarkable true & honest woman? And this is something we should applaud? What level of gigaclown horrorworld is this?


Speaking of 'erasing people' most so called historical 'transgenders' did not see themselves the way modern transgenders do. They often simply knew they were their biological sex but acted as the other and they certainly didn't have the concept of gender in mind as its currently understood.
 
Interesting giving the Henry VIII history a read over and looking up contemporary interpretations of the wives (which I am horribly out of date/passing knowledge on). Even the last one - Catherine Parr, often reduced to the stepmother, was more in line with the first two, being a woman of intelligence with good scholarly upbringing, and being marrying older than the other two wives. Being key to the education of Henry's children (why she gets the stepmother/nurse perception in history), reconciliation with his two daughters, but also was regent for a time while Henry was in France, and it's thought that this short time of her being regent surrounded by sympathetic court members that basically did what she told them to had an impact on Elizabeth.

I find it interesting that during this period you have several examples of (what I think of as) "strong women" in a genuinely patriarchal society (one that Henry VIII made it law that not disclosing prior sexual history to marrying a king was treason - what he did to get rid of Catherine Howard). Genuinely competent and well educated women who went on to make good decisions running a country. Yet the modern feminist ideas of the girlboss/sexually loose women would be the kinds who end up like Howard.

But I don't think modern TV could do any of these themes in a subtle way without it being shit or preachy. Now it's full on troons which no one will want to watch.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo