The Tudor queen Elizabeth I was one of England's most consequential rulers. The daughter of Henry VIII by Anne Boleyn, she ruled for 44 years. The Virgin Queen, as she was known due to never having married, did what her notorious father wanted to do but didn't: She made England a world power.
Now, in a staggering display of historical revisionism and disrespect, a television series on the British broadcast network Independent Television (ITV) is running a series on the Virgin Queen, but they are portraying her as transgender. In other words, as a man.
Elizabeth I will be portrayed as transgender in 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.
Those claims are backed up by, well, nothing. What this will accomplish is to erase from history one of the most powerful and consequential women to ever be in a position of national leadership.
Why do these people insist on cancelling women?
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.
Of course, nobody in Elizabethan England used "they/them" pronouns. Aside from being grammatically nonsense - Elizabeth almost certainly applied the royal "we," but nobody worried about pronouns in the 16th century. She was not non-binary. For one thing, when she ascended to the throne, she would have been subject to a physical inspection to ensure she was virgo intacta, and it's a certainty that whoever did that inspection (probably a priest) would have noted if there was anything unusual down there. For another thing, "non-binary" is a made-up term; there are some very rare genetic conditions that can cause some sexual ambiguities, but in almost every case, it's just a claim; every "non-binary" person is a man or woman.
Read More: DOJ Drops Letter on Newsom: Men Out of Women’s Prisons Now
New Poll: 68% of Voters Endorse Limits on Trans 'Female' Athletes
You may be looking back and forth from this story to the calendar, and that's understandable, but this is no April Fool's joke.
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."
It's growing more and more difficult to tell reality from parody with these people. And, I suspect, ratings for this ITV sack-o-crap will be in the basement.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member