QUEEN ELIZABETH

Wairarapa Times-Age, 14 October 1938, Page 2

QUEEN ELIZABETH

AN AMAZING THEORY. Queen Elizabeth was really King John II! That the Virgin Queen was a man is the astounding theory, based on evidence contained in Elizabethan documents, now being discussed seriously by American historians. It is held to account for many of the mysteries surrounding the Virgin Queen, who, in an age when women were normally timid, shrinking creatures, ruled England for 45 years with an iron hand and defied the might of Spain. In support of the theory that Queen Elizabeth was really King John II are quoted facts which have long been common knowledge among historians—that “she” shaved daily, had to wear a wig on account of baldness, spoke with a man’s voice, loved men’s sports, and never, right to the end, allowed a doctor near her. It is suggested that Princess Elizabeth fell ill with the plague at the age of 10 in 1543 or 1544. The little princess was in the care of Catherin Ashley, her governess and her man-at-arms, Thomas Parry. Her father, King Henry VIII granted permission for her to be transferred from London—then undergoing one of its periodic epidemics of the plague—to Overcourt Manor in the little village of Bisley, Gloucestershire. But the transference (the story goes) was too late. The princess died of the plague, just when Mistress Ashley and Parry had received news that the King intended to pay a visit within the next few days. Terrified that they would be beheaded because the child had died while in their care they searched for a girl who might masquerade as the little princess. They could find no girl who was sufficiently like Elizabeth. But there was a boy, in the care of a family named Neville living at Bis-, ley, who was believed to be a natural son of the Duke of Richmond, kinsman to the King. If it was true that he was a Richmond, it was not coincidence that he was a double of the princess with typical Tudor features and red hair. John was bought or stolen from the Nevilles and dressed in the clothes of the little girl. When the King arrived the boy had been well schooled in his part. Governess and man-at-arms were right in guessing that King Henry would not look closely at the child. Occasionally, in between hunting trips, the King saw the little figure about the lodge, and, suspecting nothing wrong, was satisfield. But, nearly 400 years later, handwriting experts have examined two letters, both signed “Elizabeth” conveying greetings to Queen Catherine Parr, stepmother of the princess. One is dated in February, 1543, the other July 31, 1544. And the experts say that the hand that wrote the second letter could not have written the first!