Henry VIII was gay and Elizabeth I was a man

 Sat 11:12 am +00:00, 12 Apr 2025  12

posted by pete fairhurst 2

Source: https://mileswmathis.com/henrygay.pdf

Strong circumstantial evidence but proof is obviously impossible now

What does your common sense tell you?

I’ve posted the intro for both sections

Photos and far more at the link

Henry

And then, like a bolt from the blue, it hit me: Henry had been gay! It was an AHA moment, and I
laughed out loud. I almost stripped down to the buff like Archimedes and sprinted down the street,
crying out Eureka! to the astonished neighbors. It would make a good story, so maybe I should just say
I did.

How had I not thought of it before? It explains the previously unexplainable, in one fell swoop. Plus,
you have to admit my logic is tight: if we have explained newer mysteries this way, we will likely be
able to explain older mysteries in the same way. It is simply a matter of odds.

Also, if I am tearing down all the old histories, you have to admit this is good place to focus. If you
told some stranger you had already outed Clinton and JFK, and you asked who should be next, he
might say Henry VIII, another famous alleged womanizer, one of the biggest. Henry would be the Mt.
Everest for someone like me. So my progression is not without its method.

We will start with that painting above. Who is that? That is Henry VIII at age 17. I bet you haven’t
ever seen that. I can’t say that it rings a bell, though it is on his Wiki page. I assume it was always
there and I just overlooked it, because I didn’t already have this thought in my head. I wasn’t looking
for it, so I didn’t see it. Or I saw it, but I did not observe it, as Holmes would say. Can I rest my case
on that? Of course not. I would be the first to admit that you can’t judge a guy by the way he looks.
We know the hairstyles and royal clothes of the time were unfortunate, to put it nicely, but still. It is a
piece of evidence. We can include it. You have to concede his mouth and expression are very weak
and don’t match at all the impression we have always had of him as a brute. It may be because that was
painted when his father was still alive, so they didn’t need to sell Henry as a brute. We can now read
the later Holbein portraits as propaganda, meant to scare off other kings and invaders.

That was painted in 1509, but we aren’t given a month. That is the same year his father died and Henry
rose to the throne. So my guess it was painted earlier in the year. Regardless, it brings us to the next
clue, which also arrives in that year. Henry’s older brother Arthur had been married to Catherine of
Aragon, and when Arthur died the families wanted Henry to marry her. Very weird, regardless, as you
will admit. At first Henry apparently thought so, too, since he refused her when he was 14. She was
six years older. But for some reason he decided to accept her three years later, after he was crowned.
Does that make any sense? This was an older girl, age 23, not attractive even by the standards of the
day, with whom his brother may have already slept. If you are Henry, you are a virile young king of
one of the richest countries on Earth, and you can literally have your pick, not only in England but in
all the countries of Europe. You won’t be allowed to marry any commoners, but still, all the duchesses
and princesses of Europe are at your disposal. So you are just going to marry your brother’s widow, a
woman who isn’t even a virgin? Are you kidding me?

Remember, at that point Henry was King, so he wasn’t bowing to his father or mother or anyone. You
will say, “The pressure was coming from the Stanleys, the kingmakers, who were sitting behind the
throne. They would allow him a secret harem, if he wanted one, but they would appoint the queen”.
Although I agree that the Stanleys were behind him, since that is my theory, you would still expect
them to allow him to pick his queen from their shortlist. After all, he needed to get it up for this
woman now and then in order to sire heirs. The only way I can see that they would be able to convince
him to take his brother’s widow is if he didn’t have any strong attraction for women one way or the
other. He appears to have thought this one was as good as any other, which is how a gay man would
feel about it. Straight men don’t think like that. They have strong preferences, even concerning women
they will only have to mount a few times. The fact that Henry, sold as so pig-headed later, was so
blasé and opinionless on this Catherine question leads me to believe his harem was an all-male harem
from the start.

Next we have that problem. What’s wrong with that portrait of Catherine of Aragon? It’s a fake. It
was painted much more recently. Much. It is absolutely awful, and doesn’t match the period style at
all, as you can see by comparing it to other portraits of his wives on Henry’s page. It may even have
been done on a computer. Look at the way the red bodice is “painted”! No real painter ever painted
anything like that, in the 16th century or any other century. Look at the hard edge between the bodice
and the black veil. That totally looks computer generated, using a cut feature. Look at the black
outline of the far shoulder! And is that headdress supposed to be Spanish? According to whom? It
looks more Star Trek. Maybe she is a Vulcan? It is hard to believe they actually publish stuff like that.
They admit no painter is known. They tell us it was re-identified in 2012 as Catherine, and is in the
National Portrait Gallery. Hah. Is that the NPG in London or DC? I’ll tell you a secret: it isn’t there.
This is all another conjob. That painting doesn’t even exist. It is computer-generated.

But do you know why they publish it? Because there are no genuine portraits of Catherine of Aragon!
Princess of Aragon and Castile, and Queen of England for 24 years, but not one image of her?!
Impossible to believe. They must have destroyed them or stored them, which confirms they are hiding
something very big. You will say Henry ordered them all to be destroyed when he divorced her, but he
couldn’t destroy portraits back in Spain, could he? She came over to England at age 15, so there should
be childhood portraits of her back in Spain. But there aren’t. There is a Flemish portrait of a girl they
have assigned to her, but although the painting is period, the assignment almost certainly is not correct.
Her family in Spain should also have copies of later portraits of her. But they don’t and apparently
never did. We will come back to that.

OK, now let’s go to the other end and look at his last wife, Katherine Parr. She also doesn’t fit the mold
we have been sold. She was 31 and looked ten years older, as was common with women of the time.
They didn’t age well back then.

She too was a widow, and they admit he chose her for her wealth. Which makes no sense. He had
already stolen billions from the monasteries, so he hardly needed to marry for money. She had been
married twice before Henry, to a Burgh and a Neville. Henry was married to her for 3.5 years and
there is no evidence they ever slept together. There were no pregnancies and no children, though she
did have a child later with her 4th husband Baron Seymour. She wasn’t barren or frigid. So she again
looks like a beard. He was just 51 when they married, so it is surprising he chose such a woman.
Henry only had one son, Edward, who was not of strong constitution, so he should have still been
choosing his queen based on that. His sixth wife should not have been a thirty-something lady like
Katherine, she should have been a fertile 18-year-old, one who could do all the work on top of him. It
is hard to believe the Stanleys would choose Katherine, or allow her to be chosen, for that reason. It
indicates to me that they had given up, and the only way they would have given up is if Henry was
completely impotent with women by then. So, either gay, or so fat and diseased he couldn’t get it up.
Or both.

So let’s move back two wives, to the 4th, Anne of Cleves. They admit this one was also
unconsummated, which is even harder to explain. She was 25 and, according to the portraits and
accounts, may have been the most attractive of the six. But he annulled her after six months and
moved on to Katherine Howard.

There is no evidence he ever slept with Katherine, either, soon making up a cocknbull story about her
cheating with a courtier. They soon faked her death and moved her back to the Howard estates.
So the last three of the six wives weren’t really wives at all: they were just ladies he met.

Then we go back to the third wife, Jane Seymour, with whom he may have slept only once. She was
the mother of Edward and died soon after that birth. Or was her death faked as well? Hard to know,
but this marriage is also strange. She was 28 when they married, and she was a close cousin of Henry
and at least two of his other wives. She had been a maid of honor to Catherine of Aragon since she was
23, but Henry had allegedly never noticed her. Even stranger, she had never married at age 28, which
meant she was an old maid—something very unusual for someone of her class, alleged talents, and
lineage. Being a 3rd cousin of the Howards and a Seymour herself, she was of a very wealthy and
prominent family. On her mother’s side she was a Wentworth, Despencer, Clifford, and Percy, all
extremely wealthy families. So why had she never married at 28? We aren’t told. The whole story is
mysterious in the extreme. Again, as someone who desperately needed a son, Henry should have
married a very young woman, in the 17-22 age range. There was no reason for him to marry this
dowdy old maid. Or, if he married an older woman, he would marry one who had already proved she
could bear a healthy son. Seymour was neither. Also curious is that although she was announced as
queen in 1536, she was never crowned. They say this was due to the plague, preventing them from
crowning her in London, but that hadn’t prevented them from being married in Whitehall, London. So
that story doesn’t scan, either. It is also odd we don’t know what she died from. There were conflicting
accounts of the cause of death, which is normally a sign of shenanigans. Later, several stories were
concocted by Jewish historians, based on nothing, which is also a sign of shenanigans.

Also strange is the two-year gap between Seymour and Anne of Cleves. Again, Edward was an only
son and not especially hale. Sons didn’t tend to last long in the Tudor homes, so Henry should have
been working on a second son immediately. But he wasn’t. It was as if he had given up on women
after Edward was born—again indicating he was gay and had always been sleeping with women as
little as possible.

So, if you are keeping score, that is four wives and only one confirmed boink among them

Lizzie

Strange that Elizabeth looks so much like her brother, right? They allegedly had different mothers, so
they shouldn’t look like twins. But that isn’t the strangest thing. It is something that I finally observed.
Ask yourself why Fitzroy is wearing a bathing cap. Probably because he had alopecia or some other
scalp problem. It is extremely odd to see a teenage boy depicted like that, and I can’t say I have ever
seen it before. Well, Elizabeth is famous for having the same problem. She always wore wigs, even in
the beginning, and had that famously ultra-high hairline, where you could see she was bald underneath
the wig. She also removed her eyebrows, and we can now see why: it broke the resemblance to
Fitzroy. The white pancake makeup is explained the same way: she was covering the gray cast of her
lower face.

We know I am not the first to suggest Elizabeth was a man, but am I the first to make this connection to
Fitzroy? It looks like it. Bram Stoker, author of Dracula, famously believed Elizabeth was a man, and
even suggested she was one of her own nephews, the son of one of Henry VIII’s bastards. I now think
he was right, though I believe it wasn’t a nephew. It was Fitzroy himself.

So let’s take a look at the dates and ages. Fitzroy is said to have been 14 years older, which doesn’t kill
the theory. Elizabeth died at age 69, so Fitzroy would have been 83. That’s certainly possible. She
became queen at age 25, so Fitzroy would have been 39. That doesn’t really work, I admit, which led
me to look at Fitzroy’s given birthyear of 1519. We already saw he was the son of Elizabeth Blount.
So our question is, could they have moved his birthyear back, to hide this possibility? And lo and
behold, we find many bells ringing immediately. First of all, Blount’s year of birth has been fudged,
being given as 1498-1502. That’s very curious, isn’t it? Why wouldn’t they know this? Being a close
cousin of the Plantagenets, most records for her should exist in some form, since these genealogies are
known in many cases back to Charlemagne. So let’s take the latest date as the most likely, meaning
that when she is said to have met Henry in 1516, she was only 13 or 14. Not believable. Not only
could she not have been a maid of honor to the queen at that age, she could not have been postpubescent. As we have seen before, girls in those centuries were not fertile until after 17. So if we
move the whole Blount story up three years, that would put Fitzroy’s birth in 1522, making him only
about 10 years older than Elizabeth.

This would also explain the lack of a portrait for Blount, though she was supposed to have been such a
beauty: portraits in that century often had a date painted on the front, and even the birthyear of the
sitter, which would have given away this entire con. So all portraits had to be destroyed or hidden. As
more indication of that, we are told that Henry VIII continued his affair with Blount for eight years,
five years after she gave birth to Fitzroy. That is also very unlikely, since kings generally tire of very
young mistresses much quicker than that. Even the seven-year itch is faster than that. It also conflicts
with other details of the story, since if Henry really did like 14-year-old girls, he would be even less
likely to stay with a mistress for eight years. Guys who like very young girls generally like a quick
turnover, since girls only look 14 for a very short time. The Japanese even have a name for it: the
mousmee. A girl is only a mousmee for a matter of months. So none of this adds up, as usual.
Of course, if they could fudge the dates of Fitzroy or Elizabeth by three years, they could fudge them
more than that. We have more indication of that on Fitzroy’s Wiki page, where they admit his birthdate
is also not known. They give a firm date at the top of the page nonetheless of June 15, which is
dishonest. That dishonesty is itself another clue here. They are trying to fool the casual reader, who
may only read the first paragraphs. They also admit that the birth of Fitzroy was not mentioned in
diplomatic dispatches or any other records of 1519. The christening is also not recorded, another huge
red flag confirming my guesses. Then we get this:

The boy’s upbringing until the moment when he entered Bridewell Palace in June 1525 (six
years following his birth) remains shrouded in confusion.

More proof we are being seriously jerked here. Fitzroy entered the peerage in 1525 as well, indicating
that may have been the year of his birth. Which doubles our fudge to six years, putting Fitzroy within
seven years of Elizabeth I.

We know that Fitzroy went with Henry to France in 1532, where he stayed for a year at court. But was
he seven or thirteen? In 1533 Fitzroy was married to Mary Howard. Were they fourteen or eight?
Ringing another bell, we find Mary Howard’s birthdate is also fudged. That is impossible to believe,
since the Howards rank right under the Stuarts and she was the daughter of the Duke of Norfolk. There
is no possibility her birthday is not known. In the bios it is given only as 1519, I assume to match
Fitzroy. So we are finding big piles of obvious clues I am right.

Fitzroy’s death is also replete with the usual signs of fraud and fakery. They claim he died in July 1536
after an extended illness, but admit he was seen in public appearances in May looking fine. He
allegedly died of tuberculosis, but no one dies of tuberculosis in one month.

Fitzroy’s father-in-law, the Duke of Norfolk, gave orders that the body be wrapped in lead then
taken in a closed cart for secret interment. However, his servants put the body in a straw-filled
wagon. The only mourners were two attendants who followed at a distance. The Duke’s ornate
tomb is in Framlingham Church, Suffolk, which contains various Howard family monuments.
Really? And we are supposed to buy that? Henry VIII was even then planning to make Fitzroy his
heir, but on his death he is just thrown into a donkey cart and dumped in Suffolk? You have to be
kidding me! Of course no one saw his body. His body was wrapped in lead and there were only two
mourners. And why would he be buried in Howard tombs? That makes absolutely no sense.

So Fitzroy’s death was obviously faked. But again, was it at age 11 or age 17? I say he was 11 and
Elizabeth was 4. But wait. . . could they have fudged Elizabeth’s birthyear as well? It is very possible,
since it is given as September 1533, a couple of months after her mother became queen. Awfully
convenient, in so many ways. But Henry met her mother Anne Boleyn years earlier, in 1525, when
Anne was already 24. Again, already approaching old maid status for the time, so as usual none of this
is really adding up. She should have already been too old for Henry in 1525, to say nothing of 1533,
when she was 32. With more digging, we find that Anne’s birthyear is also hotly contested, and I
would say 1507 is a much better guess than 1501. That would make her 18 when she first met Henry,
and 26 in 1533. But that still doesn’t explain why Henry waited seven years to sleep with her. He had
already proposed in 1527, and she had accepted, so they were engaged. Do you really think they
waited five years after that? Here is what the anonymous authors at Wiki say:

There is no evidence to suggest that they engaged in a sexual relationship until very shortly
before their marriage; Henry’s love letters to Anne suggest that their love affair
remained unconsummated for much of their seven-year courtship.[citation needed]

Hmmm. Citation needed indeed. Who says there is no evidence? Did that person look for any
evidence, or did he just come to that conclusion after being paid by the Stanleys? But evidence or no
evidence, the claim is ridiculous. No one waits seven years to have sex, but especially not a king.
Henry needed sons, so waiting around was counter-indicated by every fact at hand. He didn’t need for
Anne to be his wife: as far as he was concerned a mistress was as good as a wife, since he could always
legitimize his bastards. And the idea Anne could stall him for seven years in search of a ring is the
stupidest proposition of all time. For that reason, we can be almost certain they were sleeping together
at least by 1527. So there should have been children by 1528, unless Anne was barren. So it is quite
possible, I would say highly probable, that they have moved Elizabeth’s birthyear up by several years,
making her seem younger than she was. Which means she and Fitzroy were about the same age.
If so, why would they fake Fitzroy’s death in 1536, when he and Elizabeth were about eleven? Only
one reason I can think of: Parliament wasn’t really agreeing to legitimize him. They tell us an act was
going through Parliament that year to allow Henry to appoint Fitzroy as successor, but no such act was
passed. We are told it was stalled due to Fitzroy’s death, but I don’t believe it. There is no evidence of
that, and plenty of evidence against it. To prove me wrong, all you have to do is show me the voting
record on that bill. Good luck. I believe it was stalled for some other reason, perhaps because
Parliament didn’t like the Duke of Norfolk that close to the crown at that time. Remember, Parliament
was very divided in those years, and the Stanleys still had huge resistance from the Yorkists and other
noble lines in those decades. The Stanley victory was still touch and go at the time, as we saw in
previous papers with the upcoming problems they had with Mary, Jane Grey and Charles I some years
later. It would continue to be on a knife’s edge until they installed William and Mary. [Later: and
given what we discovered about Fitzroy being a Stanley through his mother, that guess is considerably
strengthened. Fitzroy was actually in direct line of the King of Mann, explaining why the Stanleys
were so keen to have him on the throne, even if they had to fool Parliament to do so.]

I propose that Parliament refused to recognize Fitzroy, but the Stanleys decided to install him as King
anyway, using perhaps their best trick of all time. He had the preferred bloodlines, after all, the son of
a Blount being far preferable to the son of an Aragon or even a Boleyn. By the time they needed him,
in 1558, he would be 33, and I suggest Fitzroy was already a crossdresser, giving them the idea
himself. And they may have thought they could get a son out him after all, since a male would
continue to be fertile long after a female would. He only had to successfully perform once, and they
had tricks even there, putting him and his boyfriend together with a woman: you can imagine the rest.
You have to admit this explains a lot. Bram Stoker’s theory explained a lot by itself, which is why it
was so popular and is still well known, but my additions advance the theory a very long way beyond
Stoker. To see how far, let us look at Stoker’s theory, which you can read for free at Gutenberg.org.
See the final chapter of Famous Impostors, called “the Bisley Boy”. The first thing of use we find is
that Elizabeth spent time at Bisley, Gloustershire, as a girl. Stoker then tells us of a “traditional” tale he
has discovered, claiming that Elizabeth suddenly died there and was replaced by a local boy who
resembled her. This imposture was allegedly able to fool the king upon his visit, and according to
Stoker’s account it fooled everyone from then on but three other people: Mistress Ashley who was
caring for Elizabeth at the time, the Cofferer Sir Thomas Parry, and the parent of the boy.

That is all patently absurd, of course, but the reason I mention it is this: Stoker admits the manor at
Bisley was owned by the Bohuns, and that name jumped out at me, because I had just seen it in my
research today. The Bohuns were first cousins of the Plantagenets and Fitzalans, which as we have just
seen links us not to Anne Boleyn or Elizabeth I, but to Fitzroy and his mother Elizabeth Blount.
Indicating it was Fitzroy holed up in Bisley with his relatives, not Elizabeth. So the tradition is partly
true, but Stoker has garbled it, either on purpose or by accident.

How does my theory differ from that of Stoker, other than in the identity of Fitzroy? Well, it differs as
a whole and in all parts. You have just seen that Stoker’s theory requires that everyone be fooled,
including the king and all queens. That would never happen. But in my theory, very few people have
to be fooled, and no one close to “the Queen”. If this was a plot by the Tudors and Stanleys and all the
other Lancastrians, then they were all in on it. None of the top people or insiders had to be fooled, least
of all the King. Only the top Yorkists and other ranking enemies in Parliament would have to be
fooled, and even they would only have to be fooled at first. After Fitzroy was crowned, the thing
would be a fait accompli, and irreversible even by the Yorkists. At that point they could not have outed
the fraud except by bringing down both sides of government and the entire sanctity of the crown. The
very fabric of society would be in jeopardy, and the Phoenicians would not have countenanced such a
thing for any reason. It was completely outside their rules of internecine warfare. If the Yorkists
wished to counterattack, they would have to find another way to do it. They could not risk telling such
a huge truth.

 

In fact, now that I study it, I believe Stoker’s theory was misdirection—a planned fail. His theory is so
weak, it almost refutes itself. He offers no evidence and very little argument, just a lot of wordy
waffling. Reading this chapter, you would think the man couldn’t write at all, but Dracula doesn’t read
like this. It is relatively tight and quickly moving. So I think his job was to take you near the truth,
but then spin you off out in the bushes. This is one of the tricks of these people, and it normally works
very well. They make the truth look ridiculous or at least unlikely, so that when anyone else like me
trips across evidence later, they find they have been pre-blackwashed by people like Stoker. Those
coming upon my research may Google on it and discover it has already been broached and dismissed
by the “experts”. So they won’t bother studying my analysis, or noting how it differs from or betters
previous arguments. I will have been pre-judged, as usual, which is job one for agents in this line of
work.

So did Elizabeth really die, as Stoker proposes? Maybe, but her death is not necessary to the story.
Once they decided to replace her, she could be whisked off to Germany, Holland, France, or dozens of
other places. She didn’t even need to be locked in a nunnery. All they had to do is change her name
and send her off with other noble girls her age. When the time came they could marry her off to some
earl or baron and hide her in the country. She could be called a bastard Tudor daughter—who were of
no account politically anyway—or the Howards could be ordered to claim her as one of their bastard
children. If she ever started making claims they could say she was suffering from delusions of grandeur
or something. If she got really rowdy they could ship her back to Germany again till she cooled her
heels.

And what exactly did this achieve for the Stanleys and Tudors, other than putting a male on the throne
who didn’t have any Yorkist or Catholic leanings? After the disaster with Mary, you can see how they
wouldn’t be too keen on another female or queen. Well, it also gave them many more decades to
produce another male heir. Even if Elizabeth was fertile, she would only be fertile for a couple of
decades. But Fitzroy would be fertile until he died, since that is the way males are. Their sperm counts
drop, but there is no menopause for men. You will remind me that men can’t conceive, so how would
they get a son out of him? Quite easily, in theory. They marry him to a man, but continue to couple
him to women. Once they achieve a pregnancy, they stuff his gown and say he is pregnant. When the
child arrives they say he is the mother, not the father. Nothing easier. It is not like he has to breastfeed
in public or something. Plus, this whole con may have been necessary for another reason: Elizabeth
may have been barren or otherwise compromised. Her sister Mary never had any children, despite
huge efforts, so she was effectively barren. We may assume Elizabeth had the same problem, making
her absolutely useless to the Stanleys as a queen. So Fitzroy was their only hope at that point, making
this a necessity from both ends.

Given that, I think we have to give Fitzroy the best actor of all time award. He kept up the part for 44
years. But if he was already a crossdresser to start with, it wasn’t really an acting job, per se. It was a
lifestyle choice, as they now say: