The formation of England as a great power did not begin at all from the moment when the revolution of 1642 took place in the country, which replaced the absolute monarchy with a constitutional one. It was undoubtedly an important event, but it was internal. The foreign policy of England has practically not changed in any way. Undoubtedly, there were some shifts, mainly concerning the definition of the "main enemy", which France suddenly became from Spain, but the general direction of the policy remained the same: colonialism and expansion. Since that time, the unspoken motto of England has become the phrase: the Sun never sets over the Empire.
Indeed, for almost three quarters of a century, the possession of England included many countries and territories located not only on the shores of two relatively small islands in Western Europe. The person who began to implement this policy was the Queen of England, Elizabeth I. Having ruled for more than 40 years, she was able to recruit a staff of intelligent managers who were able to expand the territory of the Empire more than 10 times compared to what it was at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Neither before nor after Elizabeth, few British monarchs were able to achieve more. It was she who made England "the ruler of the seas."
However, everything comes at a price. Elizabeth's personal life was full of setbacks. And the point is not only that she could not find a spouse for herself (which, in principle, is easy to explain - none of the European monarchs could reach the level of the then Queen of England), but the crowned person could not get herself a banal lover. The latter was, to put it mildly, strange. If someone thinks that in those years all decent people kept the vows of chastity or loyalty to their spouses, to put it mildly, they are mistaken. Both among the servants and among the nobility of the then "enlightened Europe" such debauchery was raging that any modern "tolerant and free" order would seem simply innocence.
And, nevertheless, not a single evidence, not even a hint, of the queen's intimate life has survived. They called her "Virgin" for a reason. Despite all this, Elizabeth always dressed brightly and stylishly, used makeup, wore fashionable wigs, and in general, led the life of a successful and outwardly happy woman.
The queen died at the age of 70, and two years before her death, she issued a strange decree. They were forbidden to carry out any examination of her body, even in order to establish the cause of her death, which was also nonsense for that time. The funeral rites of monarchs in Europe were subject to rather strict etiquette and somewhat resembled the burial rites of Egyptian pharaohs with the burial of the entrails of the body of a crowned person in various temples and monasteries. This was especially loved in France, but England did not lag behind.
The courtiers, taking this decree for another manifestation of the extravagance of their ruler, did just that - the queen was buried in the very outfit in which she died. Well, that's all. Death at a respectable age for that time, a magnificent funeral and the memory of grateful subjects. What else do you need to successfully end your career?
And so it would have been, if not for one interesting circumstance. True, it surfaced almost 300 years after the death of the queen. In 1870, Baron Overcourt decided to ennoble the garden of the inheritance that suddenly fell on him in the form of a small castle in the town of Beasley. First, he decided to rid him of the excessive amount of stones and slabs that were randomly lying on the front lawn and spoiling the appearance. The workers, picking up another stone, urgently ran to the owner to report the amazing find. At the bottom of a small sarcophagus lay the remains of a girl of about 10 years old, on which traces of brocade and silk, clothing of the high nobility of the mid-16th century, were preserved.
Sir Overcourt did not attach much importance to this, thinking that the workers had simply opened the family grave, however, the local priest Thomas Cabel, who knew the story better than the hapless aristocrat, immediately understood everything. He told Overcourt that in the mid-1540s, Henry's very young daughter, Elizabeth, had been sent from London to the estate. In this castle, she escaped from the plague. And it is possible that she died here, that these are her remains, and a completely different girl was sent back to London, very similar to the late Elizabeth.
Promotional video:
Overcourt only laughed at the priest's version, advising him that if he did not want to be in the Yellow House, not to tell anyone about his version. The priest did just that, with the only difference that he set out his reasoning on paper without showing it to anyone until his death. After his death, Cabel's relatives found the archive of an alternative historian and showed it at the beginning of the 20th century to the famous writer Bram Stoker.
Stoker appreciated the magnitude of Cabel's idea and began his own investigation. Even what he learned from open sources, to put it mildly, was shocking. The fact is that Queen Elizabeth, wherever she was, always and everywhere wanted to have two governesses with her, with whom she, while still a girl, escaped from the plague in Beasley. Their names were Kat Ashley and Blanche Perry. Only these two persons, who became noblewomen during Elizabeth's accession to the throne, and even Blanche's husband, Sir Thomas Perry, were allowed to enter the Queen's apartments at any time.
In addition, among the inhabitants of Beasley there was a legend that Elizabeth was not replaced by a girl, but by a boy, since the governess could not find a suitable female candidate. This seemingly insane idea has a right to exist for itself, it is enough just to remember how Elizabeth looked and dressed.
She always used a thick layer of makeup, wore a wig, because by the age of 35 she was already almost bald, in addition, it was under Elizabeth that a high collar that hides the Adam's apple came into fashion … Obviously, Elizabeth, how could she hide exactly the "male" features of her appearance … Well, and a decree not to examine her body after death. Too many coincidences …
In addition, the queen's style of government was by no means feminine. Decisions were made and implemented with incredible firmness and tenacity. And how the queen got along great with robbers such as Drake and Bacon! To force such "negative" personalities to serve for the good of the state is clearly not a "feminine" act either.
And of course, the main argument in favor of the queen being a man is celibacy and the complete absence of intimate life. As a "information cover" for the royal courts of Europe, English spies spread a rumor that the queen, they say, after an illness she was infertile, could not have children, well, and, accordingly, she did not need marriage.
Could Henry have noticed the substitution? After all, someone who, but a father would always recognize that it was not his daughter in front of him. But he couldn't. Until the end of his life, Henry was angry with Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth's mother for her "treason", so the last time he saw his daughter when she was only three years old. She was very similar to her mother, and Heinrich was an impressionable person, and did not want to disturb the past. In addition, Elizabeth was by no means the first in line to the throne, and in general no one took the question of her reign seriously …
Stoker's version was subject to numerous criticism, however, already in the middle of the 20th century, with the advent of DNA analysis, it became possible to verify this version. The remains of Henry VIII rest in Westminster Abbey, the remains of Elizabeth and his daughter are in the same place. Why not do some analysis? However, even a hint of such research sparked an outcry at Windsor Palace. Not only members of the ruling family, but even people far from the throne expressed an extremely negative opinion about the possibility of such "checks".
The very fact of such a negative attitude suggests certain thoughts. It is possible that Stoker and Cabel are not that far from the truth. In any case, the pace of liberalization of English society allows us to hope that sooner or later, someone from the monarchs of the United Kingdom will allow such a study. I wonder what will be his result?