Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Elizabeth I rumour of child

This reminds me of another strange story. An old teacher of mine reported rumours that Elizabeth was, in fact, male, hence her failure to marry.

Completely illogical, really. Henry yearned for a healthy male heir and cherished Edward's mother long after her death. Anne Boleyn's failure in this respect was the only reason she was replaced. It would completely have changed the future as Elizabeth would have been his heir apparent (not presumptive) and Edward would never have existed, nor the Dudley revolt, Mary's Counter-reformation.......

Elizabeth's laundresses had regular evidence of her femininity and, indeed, her fertility.
----- Original Message -----
From: helenmpearson
To:
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth I rumour of child


Interesting but no evidence.

From what I remember the child rumoured to have been born at World's
End was born before Elizabeth became Queen. Trying to find some facts
about this might make a retirement interest in another 20 years!

Helen in Scotland.

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , "helenmpearson"
> <Helen@C...> wrote:
> > When we were living in North Wales we used to walk a great deal
> and
> > would often borrow books of walks from the local library to add
> > background to some of the routes.
> >
> > One walk I remember very well included passing a house
at "World's
> > End" near Llangollen and the guide book said local rumour has it
> > Lizzie I gave birth to a baby in the house. No other details were
> > given and it just stuck in the back of my mind (for 20 tears!)
> Anyone
> > else know of this?
> >
> > I don't recall the name of the book of course!
> >
> > Just curious......
> >
> > Helen in Scotland
>
> Check these out:
> http://englishculture.allinfoabout.com/features/francis-bacon.html
> http://www.barnum.org/nti02935.htm
>
> It is hard to give them any credence but they may be of interest.
> Brunhild


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Interesting, but not unique. I remember reading a newspaper report
some years ago, in which it was stated that a French scientist was
claiming that although Joan of Arc appeared outwardly to be a
woman 'she' was genetically a man.

Ann


--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> This reminds me of another strange story. An old teacher of mine
reported rumours that Elizabeth was, in fact, male, hence her failure
to marry.
>
> Completely illogical, really. Henry yearned for a healthy male heir
and cherished Edward's mother long after her death. Anne Boleyn's
failure in this respect was the only reason she was replaced. It
would completely have changed the future as Elizabeth would have been
his heir apparent (not presumptive) and Edward would never have
existed, nor the Dudley revolt, Mary's Counter-reformation.......
>
> Elizabeth's laundresses had regular evidence of her femininity and,
indeed, her fertility.

There is a medical condition where gender identity is not always
apparent and several cases have been documented over the years. I
could dig up my medical references if anyone is *really* interested.


Helen in Durham



--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Interesting, but not unique. I remember reading a newspaper report
> some years ago, in which it was stated that a French scientist was
> claiming that although Joan of Arc appeared outwardly to be a
> woman 'she' was genetically a man.
>
> Ann
>

There was a suggestion in the newspaper article that Joan of Arc fell
into this category, and I'm fairly certain that it has also been
suggested in relation to Elizabeth I.

Ann


--- In , "helenmpearson"
<Helen@C...> wrote:
> There is a medical condition where gender identity is not always
> apparent and several cases have been documented over the years. I
> could dig up my medical references if anyone is *really* interested.
>
>
> Helen in Durham
>
>
>
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Interesting, but not unique. I remember reading a newspaper
report
> > some years ago, in which it was stated that a French scientist
was
> > claiming that although Joan of Arc appeared outwardly to be a
> > woman 'she' was genetically a man.
> >
> > Ann
> >

Interesting, but not unique. I remember reading a newspaper report
some years ago, in which it was stated that a French scientist was
claiming that although Joan of Arc appeared outwardly to be a
woman 'she' was genetically a man.

Ann
--------------------------------------------
He apparently didn't read what Jean de Metz had to say. He and his friend (I've forgotten his name at the moment, and am at work) traveled with Joan from Vaucouleurs to Chinon. All three slept in one space, and Jean testified he had plenty of chance to observe Joan. Like Joan's page, who dressed and armed her, Jean de Metz said that Joan had an attractive body (the page said her breasts were "beautiful"), but that he respected her too much to touch her. Also, Joan underwent at least two thorough examinations for virginity, one supervised by Charles VII's mother-in-law, Yolande of Aragon; the other by the Burgundians, after her capture. Virginity was confirmed (though the Burgundians noted loss of the hymen due to horse riding), and if there had been any discrepancies, the Burgundians would have been sure to announce them.

Maria
elena@...

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Interesting, but not unique. I remember reading a newspaper report
> some years ago, in which it was stated that a French scientist was
> claiming that although Joan of Arc appeared outwardly to be a
> woman 'she' was genetically a man.
>
> Ann

I presume this was just a surmise of the "real women stay in Lorraine
& eat quiche" variety. I presume that, between the stake and the
Seine, there is no actual genetic material remaining to test.

Marie
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen LARK"
> <smlark@i...> wrote:
> > This reminds me of another strange story. An old teacher of mine
> reported rumours that Elizabeth was, in fact, male, hence her
failure
> to marry.
> >
> > Completely illogical, really. Henry yearned for a healthy male
heir
> and cherished Edward's mother long after her death. Anne Boleyn's
> failure in this respect was the only reason she was replaced. It
> would completely have changed the future as Elizabeth would have
been
> his heir apparent (not presumptive) and Edward would never have
> existed, nor the Dudley revolt, Mary's Counter-reformation.......
> >
> > Elizabeth's laundresses had regular evidence of her femininity
and,
> indeed, her fertility.

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> This reminds me of another strange story. An old teacher of mine
reported rumours that Elizabeth was, in fact, male, hence her
failure to marry.
>
> Completely illogical, really. Henry yearned for a healthy male
heir and cherished Edward's mother long after her death. Anne
Boleyn's failure in this respect was the only reason she was
replaced. It would completely have changed the future as Elizabeth
would have been his heir apparent (not presumptive) and Edward would
never have existed, nor the Dudley revolt, Mary's Counter-
reformation.......
>
> Elizabeth's laundresses had regular evidence of her femininity
and, indeed, her fertility.


Indee, I received a similar story but was given the impressin it was
more a hormonal thing - a woman outwardly but inwardly male. Similar
ideas have been put about for Mary given her deep voice. I once had
to see a doctor about something and he commented on my deep voice
too, suggesting I might have too many male hormones. Seems Mary or
even Elizabeth may have been similar?????
Brunhild

----- Original Message -----
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth I rumour of child


--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> This reminds me of another strange story. An old teacher of mine
reported rumours that Elizabeth was, in fact, male, hence her
failure to marry.
>
> Completely illogical, really. Henry yearned for a healthy male
heir and cherished Edward's mother long after her death. Anne
Boleyn's failure in this respect was the only reason she was
replaced. It would completely have changed the future as Elizabeth
would have been his heir apparent (not presumptive) and Edward would
never have existed, nor the Dudley revolt, Mary's Counter-
reformation.......
>
> Elizabeth's laundresses had regular evidence of her femininity
and, indeed, her fertility.


Indee, I received a similar story but was given the impressin it was
more a hormonal thing - a woman outwardly but inwardly male. Similar
ideas have been put about for Mary given her deep voice. I once had
to see a doctor about something and he commented on my deep voice
too, suggesting I might have too many male hormones. Seems Mary or
even Elizabeth may have been similar?????
Brunhild

Thanks. I know that modern women who smoke or live with a heavy smoker have deeper voices but Raleigh's bringing back of tobacco happened late in Elizabeth's reign, well after Mary died (obviously).
Stephen




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: brunhild613
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 7:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Elizabeth I rumour of
child
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen LARK"
> <smlark@i...> wrote:
> > This reminds me of another strange story. An old teacher of
mine
> reported rumours that Elizabeth was, in fact, male, hence her
> failure to marry.
> >
> > Completely illogical, really. Henry yearned for a healthy male
> heir and cherished Edward's mother long after her death. Anne
> Boleyn's failure in this respect was the only reason she was
> replaced. It would completely have changed the future as
Elizabeth
> would have been his heir apparent (not presumptive) and Edward
would
> never have existed, nor the Dudley revolt, Mary's Counter-
> reformation.......
> >
> > Elizabeth's laundresses had regular evidence of her femininity
> and, indeed, her fertility.
>
>
> Indee, I received a similar story but was given the impressin it
was
> more a hormonal thing - a woman outwardly but inwardly male.
Similar
> ideas have been put about for Mary given her deep voice. I once
had
> to see a doctor about something and he commented on my deep voice
> too, suggesting I might have too many male hormones. Seems Mary
or
> even Elizabeth may have been similar?????
> Brunhild
>
> Thanks. I know that modern women who smoke or live with a heavy
smoker have deeper voices but Raleigh's bringing back of tobacco
happened late in Elizabeth's reign, well after Mary died (obviously).
> Stephen

However, I wonder if Brunhild's doctor might not have been, like a
lot of male GPs (including H Shipman of course - chips on shoulder
for not having 'made it' as consultants?) just a bit of a sexist
bastard. I keep thinking I have a deep voice (though others tell me
I'm a highpitched southerner). My auntie Kate DID have a deep voice,
but then my dad, her brother, had a VERY deep voice indeed. Is it
also a combination of sex and family characteristic?

I suspect all this nonsense about J of A, E I & MT is all coming for
folks who can't get their heads round females being in charge.

Ducking for cover,

Marie
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>

--- In , "helenmpearson"
<Helen@C...> wrote:
> There is a medical condition where gender identity is not always
> apparent and several cases have been documented over the years. I
> could dig up my medical references if anyone is *really* interested.
>
>
> Helen in Durham


There is testicular feminization, which has several other names. In
it the person is genetically male but has the outward appearance of
(sometimes rather boyish) woman. It has been suggested that
Elizabeth I had this condition.

It's an interesting idea. She was almost bald later in life (result
of typhoid fever, or male pattern baldness?), she was quite flat-
chested (the small amount of cleavage she shoed in portraits was the
effect of the clothing style), she was very strong and could out-ride
most men till well into middle age, she was said to have abnormal
sexual parts during her lifetime, and there was her famous
exclaation, upon hearing of the birth of the future James VI/I "The
Queen of Scots is lighter of a fair son, and I am but barren
stock!"...since she was in her thirties at the time and her fertility
had never been put to the test, how would she know she wasbarren
unless she was aware of some abnormality in her genitals?

The rumor that she was actually male was going around during her
lifetime. One story was that while she was off in the countryside
being ignored as a bastard, the real Elizabeth died, and when Henry
VIII suddenly sent for her, a child had to be produced, so a young
boy was rounded up and sent in her place. Patently ridiculous, of
course, but the story did exist and it is only one of many that
sugggest that for some reason, Elizabeths gender was in question.
Maybe it was because she was a powerful woman of great strength of
character, courage and intelligence...therefore she couldn't have
been a mere woman. But just possibly there was something to it.
Nature does some dd things, and testicular feminization is not that
rare.

On the other hand, all these items can be explained away and her
body, at death, showed no sign of being anything but an old woman.
Whether her sexual orgas were examined post ortem is impossible to
say, but I rather doubt it.

It would have been a bitter irony, though, if Henry had gotten his
son, after all, and neither of them ever knew.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "helenmpearson"
> <Helen@C...> wrote:
> > There is a medical condition where gender identity is not always
> > apparent and several cases have been documented over the years. I
> > could dig up my medical references if anyone is *really*
interested.
> >
> >
> > Helen in Durham
>
>
> There is testicular feminization, which has several other names.
In
> it the person is genetically male but has the outward appearance of
> (sometimes rather boyish) woman. It has been suggested that
> Elizabeth I had this condition.
>
> It's an interesting idea. She was almost bald later in life
(result
> of typhoid fever, or male pattern baldness?), she was quite flat-
> chested (the small amount of cleavage she shoed in portraits was
the
> effect of the clothing style), she was very strong and could out-
ride
> most men till well into middle age, she was said to have abnormal
> sexual parts during her lifetime, and there was her famous
> exclaation, upon hearing of the birth of the future James VI/I "The
> Queen of Scots is lighter of a fair son, and I am but barren
> stock!"...since she was in her thirties at the time and her
fertility
> had never been put to the test, how would she know she wasbarren
> unless she was aware of some abnormality in her genitals?
>
> The rumor that she was actually male was going around during her
> lifetime. One story was that while she was off in the countryside
> being ignored as a bastard, the real Elizabeth died, and when Henry
> VIII suddenly sent for her, a child had to be produced, so a young
> boy was rounded up and sent in her place. Patently ridiculous, of
> course, but the story did exist and it is only one of many that
> sugggest that for some reason, Elizabeths gender was in question.
> Maybe it was because she was a powerful woman of great strength of
> character, courage and intelligence...therefore she couldn't have
> been a mere woman. But just possibly there was something to it.
> Nature does some dd things, and testicular feminization is not that
> rare.
>
> On the other hand, all these items can be explained away and her
> body, at death, showed no sign of being anything but an old woman.
> Whether her sexual orgas were examined post ortem is impossible to
> say, but I rather doubt it.
>
> It would have been a bitter irony, though, if Henry had gotten his
> son, after all, and neither of them ever knew.
>
> Katy

Could she not have used the word "barren" in the sense of childless?
Had she by that time perhaps come to a decision to remain single for
political reasons? It would have been risky for a woman to start
bearing children late, simply because of the impossibility of
carrying out caesarians.
There was bound to be some talk, I suppose, given Elizabeth's skills
as a ruler - it had always been assumed in England that women were
quite unfitted for that sort of role. Also Elizabeth had had an
excellent education of the type normally only afforded to boys, so
that she wouldn't have thought or argued like your average lady. And
she did not marry, so no children to prove to the gossips that she
was all there in the ladylike department.
Was it not the case that she menstruated normally, and was physically
examined at one time with a view to marriage?
I suppose with the Mary Tudor query there would have been the same
suspicion because of her role, and because she seemed unable to get
genuinely pregnant.
And of course Joan of Arc was quite an aberration in terms of
accepted female behaviour. And, worse still, she wore male clothing!
She too of course did not marry or produce children. But she
certainly was physically examined, by the Duchess of Burgundy herself
I seem to remember, to see if she was still a virgin (the English &
Burgundians were actually more interested in proving that she'd been
whoring with the French army).
Again, I think my view is that, though some of these conditions may
not be that rare, without some real evidence that any of these women
were abnormal I'd prefer to stick with the statistically more likely
option - ie that each was a regular member of the female sex.

Marie

>
> Indeed, I received a similar story but was given the impressin
it was
> more a hormonal thing - a woman outwardly but inwardly male.
Similar
> ideas have been put about for Mary given her deep voice. I once
had
> to see a doctor about something and he commented on my deep
voice
> too, suggesting I might have too many male hormones. Seems Mary
or
> even Elizabeth may have been similar?????
> Brunhild
>
> Thanks. I know that modern women who smoke or live with a heavy
smoker have deeper voices but Raleigh's bringing back of tobacco
happened late in Elizabeth's reign, well after Mary died (obviously).
> Stephen

I have never smoked. I don't have a hairy chest either though the
doc seemed to think it possible. I have taught girls with male
voices before. Not exactly rare I guess.
B
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>
>
>

>
> However, I wonder if Brunhild's doctor might not have been, like a
> lot of male GPs (including H Shipman of course - chips on shoulder
> for not having 'made it' as consultants?) just a bit of a sexist
> bastard. I keep thinking I have a deep voice (though others tell
me
> I'm a highpitched southerner). My auntie Kate DID have a deep
voice,
> but then my dad, her brother, had a VERY deep voice indeed. Is it
> also a combination of sex and family characteristic?
>
> I suspect all this nonsense about J of A, E I & MT is all coming
for
> folks who can't get their heads round females being in charge.
>
> Ducking for cover,
>
> Marie

I quite agree, Marie, I always had my suspicions about him....The
fact that he sniggered was something of a giveaway...As for not
getting heads round women in charge and therefore likening them to
men I would have to demur. I believe there are, for instance, so
such masculine attributes suggested for my namesake, Brunhild of
Austrasia, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Theophanu, Fredegund. There is an
account of Brunhild, for instance, titivating herself upon her
capture by Lothar in a most feminine manner, and descriptions of
Eleanor stress her feminine charm. Maybe it's on a par with the
rather mad claim of Victorian historians that Richard the Lionheart
was gay on the frivolous basis of his a. spending most of time with
soldiers and b. having no children.
In fact he was a notorious womaniser and even rapist. (Sorry if that
disillusions anyone's image of the great hero!) His last known act
when dying according to John Gillingham was to have a prostitute
brought to his tent. If an outrageous belief like that can take over
then why not these suggestions about these women? Interesting,
though, that no-one suggests it about Mary Queen of Scots.
Brunhild
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
---
> ----------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >

The same Mary Stuart who, when her head was picked up, was found to be just as bald as her cousin, of course!

Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth I rumour of child



>
> However, I wonder if Brunhild's doctor might not have been, like a
> lot of male GPs (including H Shipman of course - chips on shoulder
> for not having 'made it' as consultants?) just a bit of a sexist
> bastard. I keep thinking I have a deep voice (though others tell
me
> I'm a highpitched southerner). My auntie Kate DID have a deep
voice,
> but then my dad, her brother, had a VERY deep voice indeed. Is it
> also a combination of sex and family characteristic?
>
> I suspect all this nonsense about J of A, E I & MT is all coming
for
> folks who can't get their heads round females being in charge.
>
> Ducking for cover,
>
> Marie

I quite agree, Marie, I always had my suspicions about him....The
fact that he sniggered was something of a giveaway...As for not
getting heads round women in charge and therefore likening them to
men I would have to demur. I believe there are, for instance, so
such masculine attributes suggested for my namesake, Brunhild of
Austrasia, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Theophanu, Fredegund. There is an
account of Brunhild, for instance, titivating herself upon her
capture by Lothar in a most feminine manner, and descriptions of
Eleanor stress her feminine charm. Maybe it's on a par with the
rather mad claim of Victorian historians that Richard the Lionheart
was gay on the frivolous basis of his a. spending most of time with
soldiers and b. having no children.
In fact he was a notorious womaniser and even rapist. (Sorry if that
disillusions anyone's image of the great hero!) His last known act
when dying according to John Gillingham was to have a prostitute
brought to his tent. If an outrageous belief like that can take over
then why not these suggestions about these women? Interesting,
though, that no-one suggests it about Mary Queen of Scots.
Brunhild
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
---
> ----------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

>
> Could she not have used the word "barren" in the sense of
childless?

I think so.

> Had she by that time perhaps come to a decision to remain single
for
> political reasons? It would have been risky for a woman to start
> bearing children late, simply because of the impossibility of
> carrying out caesarians.

Again by this point she had turned down numerous marriage offers and
seemed fairly set on being single.

> There was bound to be some talk, I suppose, given Elizabeth's
skills
> as a ruler - it had always been assumed in England that women were
> quite unfitted for that sort of role. Also Elizabeth had had an
> excellent education of the type normally only afforded to boys, so
> that she wouldn't have thought or argued like your average lady.
And
> she did not marry, so no children to prove to the gossips that she
> was all there in the ladylike department.

Yet if there were rumours she had two illegitimate/secret sons then
at least some people believed she was all woman! In fact if one
reads comments made by councilors like Cecil they bewail her ultra
feminine traits and ploys. For instance:

"This irresolution doth weary and kill her ministers, destroy her
actions and overcome all good designs and counsels – no letters
touching Ireland, although read and allowed by her Majesty, yet can
I get signed, I wait whilst I neither have eyes to see nor legs to
stand upon. And yet these delays grieve me more, and will not let me
sleep in the night." (Secretary Thomas Smith on Elizabeth's
prevarications.)

The idea here being very much that her female indecisiviness is a
nuisance. Other stories such as the poor French ambassador who
realised to his horror he was expected to admire her (underendowed
and wrinkly) bosom when her dressing gown fell open (several times).
We know for a fact that Anne Boleyn was not large bosomed. Henry
VIII describes her breasts quite clearly and she was anything but a
36D. Elizabeth probably took after her.
B ;-)

> Was it not the case that she menstruated normally, and was
physically
> examined at one time with a view to marriage?
> I suppose with the Mary Tudor query there would have been the same
> suspicion because of her role, and because she seemed unable to
get
> genuinely pregnant.
> And of course Joan of Arc was quite an aberration in terms of
> accepted female behaviour. And, worse still, she wore male
clothing!
> She too of course did not marry or produce children. But she
> certainly was physically examined, by the Duchess of Burgundy
herself
> I seem to remember, to see if she was still a virgin (the English
&
> Burgundians were actually more interested in proving that she'd
been
> whoring with the French army).
> Again, I think my view is that, though some of these conditions
may
> not be that rare, without some real evidence that any of these
women
> were abnormal I'd prefer to stick with the statistically more
likely
> option - ie that each was a regular member of the female sex.
>
> Marie

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> The same Mary Stuart who, when her head was picked up, was found
to be just as bald as her cousin, of course!
>
> Stephen
>
True - but they still never suggested she was anything but the
epitome of femininity - even though she was 6ft tall, and that alone
might make one wonder in those days. I assume they put it down to
hardship in prison.
B

And of course Joan of Arc was quite an aberration in terms of
accepted female behaviour. And, worse still, she wore male clothing!
She too of course did not marry or produce children. But she
certainly was physically examined, by the Duchess of Burgundy herself
I seem to remember, to see if she was still a virgin (the English &
Burgundians were actually more interested in proving that she'd been
whoring with the French army).
Again, I think my view is that, though some of these conditions may
not be that rare, without some real evidence that any of these women
were abnormal I'd prefer to stick with the statistically more likely
option - ie that each was a regular member of the female sex.

Marie
----------------------
Joan was examined twice, actually, as I noted before, once by potential
allies in the supervisory role of Yolande of Aragon, the other time
supervised by Anne of Burgundy, as directed by the English. It was
noted that Joan had lost her hymen but that this was due to her horse
riding activities, that she was a woman, and that she was a virgin.

Also, as I posted previously, several men who traveled and worked
closely with her said that she was attractive, but respect held them
back from making any moves. In Rouen, where she was the enemy, she had
trouble with her guards, and it's implied that, after her recanting,
when she was returned to prison in women's clothing, that worse happened
between her and the guards. Before this, her wearing men's clothing was
commented on, but it was recognized as a practical action to take
considering her playing field. Charles, Dunois, Yolande and others
never objected to it.

Maria
Elena@...

Regarding Elizabeth and Joan of Arc being "male" I have a suspicion that the rumours may had only come from that both women didn't behave in the way that was expected from women in their era. Joan too military and her liking to dress in male clothes, Elizabeth being too smart and capable for a "mere female".

Helen







---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
- New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time!

Diseases of the adrenal glands can cause testosterone level increase.

Just an idea and I have a lot of information about one particular
rare form of adrenal disease as I am a sufferer!

Helen in Scotland