Bloody Mary and Elizabeth the Butcher
A Revisionist History Lesson in Trickery by Omission
Copyright ©2024
“The reason for fightin' I never did get
“But I learned to accept it, accept it with pride
“For you don't count the dead when God's on your side.”
— Bob Dylan
Elizabeth I is as close to a secular saint as Hollywood and the masonic empire can confect. In two Tinseltown films written by agit-prop specialist Michael Hirst and directed by Indian film-maker Shekhar Kapur, “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” Cate Blanchett shines as what the film-makers depict as the beautiful, intelligent, wise, tolerant, humanist Renaissance Enlightenment queen who possessed a heart like a lion.
In the myth, her predecessor and half-sister, the Catholic Mary I (“Bloody Mary”) suffers badly by comparison. Yet to term Elizabeth an orthodox Protestant monarch is to stretch the truth considerably. She was the occult queen of England, Isis-Pallas-Athena.
“Elizabeth” was nominated for seven Academy Awards including Best Picture.
In “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” her famous Tilbury speech of August 9, 1588 (which she may never have actually delivered), supposedly given in the midst of the attack by sea by the Spanish Armada, was rewritten for popular consumption. The adoring script reads: “In the midst of the advancing array of banners and flags, riding a white horse, dressed in silver armor, holding a silver staff —Elizabeth —transformed into a goddess of war. The thousands of gaping soldiers sink awe-struck to their knees.”
The goddess reference is noteworthy and we will have more to say with regard to the insinuation that she was “the New Isis,” which is a strange appellation for a “Christian” monarch.
Moreover, Lionel Sharp, an alleged eye-witness who was a member of the retinue of the Earl of Leicester at Tilbury wrote, “The queen the next morning rode through all the squadron of her army as armed Pallas…”
There’s the goddess identification again. In this instance the allusion is to Pallas-Athena, “goddess of wisdom and warfare.” A Greek sculpture of this deity depicts her standing next to her nearly upright familiar, “the guardian serpent of the Acropolis.”
In the movie, at Tilbury Elizabeth states, “My loving people! We see the sails of the enemy approaching. We hear the Spanish guns over the water. Soon now we will meet them face to face. In that encounter, England lives, or England dies. I am resolved in the midst and heat of the battle to live or die amongst you all!’ A cheer from the men.
“While we stand together no invader shall pass. Let them come with all the armies of Hell, they will not pass.” The crowd gives another mighty cheer. So let us sound the advance and go forward, together, you and I. I myself will be your general, judge and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. When this day of battle is ended, we meet again in heaven, or on the field of victory.’ The greatest shout of all” (end quote).
According to the version accepted by the court historians, this is what she actually declared: “We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery. But I assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people.
“Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honor and my blood, even in the dust.
“I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm: to which rather than any dishonor shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field…not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valor in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over these enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.”
It is rousing, memorable oratory. Who could forget it or fail to memorialize it? Yet, no one reported it at the time, with the exception of the aforementioned Lionel Sharp. It is on his word alone that the speech entered the national mythos, via its eventual publication in London 66 years later, in 1654, in a book published by M.M.G. Bedell and T. Collins, under the title, Cabala Mysteries of State in Letters of the Great Ministers of K(ing) James and K (King) Charles (I) [pages 259-260].
The degree of false flags, duplicity and dissimulation in the reign of Elizabeth is a marvel to behold. Even more marvelous is the extent to which her reputation has escaped reproach for this diabolic dealing, while in both Protestant and secular histories the name Jesuit has become a byword for vice and Mary I the personification of bloodshed.
Falsehoods perpetuated by Omission
Also sharing the top of the traduced list is Queen Mary herself. Her reign is invariably presented as that of a vexed woman with a nervous complaint, a pale shadow of her sister—a loser in looks, erudition and military acumen—and decidedly unpopular with the English people. These are falsehoods effectuated by what has not been reported.
We tend to put too great an emphasis on vigilance toward outright lies inserted in the historical record. This misdirection often leads us to overlook the potency of the omission of facts in beguiling us into accepting propaganda as history.
On the eve of the death of her half-brother, the boy-king Edward VI, Princess Mary was faced with a conspiracy to deny her the succession which her father, Henry VIII, had willed. It was intended by conspirators led by John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland, that Lady Jane Grey would usurp Mary. Jane did rule — for nine days.
The contemporary Tudor historian Robert Wingfield in his Vita Mariae Angliae Reginae wrote that from her quarters at Kenninghall, on discovering the throne had been taken from her, Mary gathered her people, asserted her right to the monarchy and her intent to enforce those rights and inaugurate her reign. She was met with thunderous cheers for what was, as Wingfield noted, an act of “Herculean rather than womanly daring,” in that “she was entirely unprepared for warfare and had insignificant forces.”
Historian Nicola Tallis writes: “Mary intended to fight for her birthright, but with Northumberland in control of the capital the odds were stacked against her…He…seized the treasury and money-reserves of the kingdom, has appointed his own men to the command of fortresses (and) has raised a force of artillery, fitted out warships for service…” (Young Elizabeth and Her Perilous Path to the Crown [2024], p. 192]).
On July 10, 1553 the new Queen Jane was presented to the people of London with the customary pomp, yet “no one present showed any sign of rejoicing and no one cried ‘Long live the Queen’ except the herald who made the proclamation and a few archers who followed him.
“… having had her inheritance taken from her once before by her own father, Mary, meanwhile, was not prepared to give up without a fight. The day before the proclamation she had arrived at her Norfolk base… It was from there that she received confirmation of Edward’s death, and she wasted no time in making her intentions known….she now proclaimed herself queen…She knew however that much was to be done, and: she has also written letters to the council, which they received, declaring herself queen. We have been told that when the letters arrived the council were at table and were greatly astonished and troubled.… A seething Northumberland now knew that he had a fight on his hands” (Tallis, p. 193).
The conspirators had gambled that with Jane on the throne Mary would timidly slink into the background. Instead they discovered that here too was a queen with the heart of a lion.
From Kenninghall Mary traveled to Framlingham Castle, “the strongest castle in Suffolk,” where she gathered her army.
Sympathetic sailors on warships of the Royal Navy off the coast, who had been ordered to prevent Mary from escaping by sea, sailed inland with cannons from their vessels which they donated to her and then manned them as part of her armed force. This naval artillery was formidable, as Eric Ives noted (Lady Jane Grey [2011], p. 210). The heavy weapons were a deterrent factor for those seeking to combat Mary and deny her rightful succession.
There was no overall commander of her force. Thus, Mary rode at the head of her troops. There are no depictions of her gallantry in any Hollywood movie of which this writer is aware. Many histories pass over it, or treat it as a footnote, while Elizabeth at Tilbury has become a centerpiece.
By July 18th, 30,000 armed Englishmen had rallied to the side of the alleged “unpopular Catholic” Mary (cf. David Loades, Mary Tudor: The Tragical History of the First Queen of England [2006, p. 102]).
Terrified of her approaching army, in London the Privy Council on July 19 proclaimed Mary queen, amid street “scenes of overwhelming relief and joy” among the people (ibid, Loades).
The abortive coup, whose puppet was Lady Jane Grey, was finished. Edward had engineered it before he died, in defiance of parliamentary statute law (the Third Succession Act of 1544). Northumberland had sought to bring it to fruition. The rule of law prevailed, however. The Tudor line was preserved: not only was Mary’s right of succession restored; so too was that of Elizabeth, the next in line to the throne. Upon taking power Mary was merciful to many of the conspirators who had plotted against her.
In 1553 the vast majority of the English people were Catholic. “Tudor England called on the great Christian hymn Te Deum Laudamus (‘We praise you, O God’), at moments of deliverance... Sung by the choir of Saint Paul’s Cathedral immediately after the proclamation of Queen Mary and repeated the following day in church after church throughout London, it was a sigh of the most profound collective relief: ‘In thee, O Lord, have we trusted; let us never be confounded.’ It had been a miracle. Historians are not by and large inclined to supernatural explanations, but they are addicted to a near equivalent —inevitability” (Ives, op. cit., p. 225).
None of the preceding is intended as any apologia for what would transpire under the new monarch: the burning alive of more than 280 men and women for their dissenting religious views. There is no excuse for that horror.
What is not well know however, is that the killing was nearly replicated in the reign of Queen Elizabeth: more than 250 Catholics were murdered by her order, either tortured to death on the rack or in public on the scaffold, where their bodies and in particular their intestines were cut and drawn out while they lived. The genitals of the condemned were often surgically removed, slowly and agonizingly. The fact that Elizabeth escaped the nickname “Bloody” is a consequence of the marvelous sophistication of Protestant propaganda which has endured into the 21st century.
For context, we should be mindful that under her tyrannical father, Mary had shared the fate of her mother, his faithful wife Catherine of Aragon (cf. the book of the same name by Garrett Mattingly). Catherine was the daughter of one of the most heroic rulers in all Christendom, Isabella of Spain (cf. Kirstin Downey, Isabella: The Warrior Queen [2014]).
After Catherine had been dumped for Anne Boleyn, she and Mary were forced by Henry to live in abject poverty, intermittently suffering cold and malnutrition, in the course of which Mary may have been afflicted with a form of post-traumatic stress syndrome. During her reign she was badly advised by Cardinal Reginald Pole and labored under the pontificate of the anti-Spanish, “half-mad Pope Paul IV,” as Eamon Duffy characterized him.
Mary built a police state which Elizabeth perfected after the former’s death. Elizabeth seems to have possessed twice the cunning of Mary and consequently had the wit to characterize most every Catholic and Anabaptist dissenter she tortured or butchered to death as a traitor or spy. Religion, her brilliant agents Sir Francis Walsingham and William Cecil slyly insisted, had little to do with it. They cynically argued that the execution of Catholics was the “unfortunate” duty of a “reluctant” government threatened by foreign subversion.
Next week paid subscribers will embark on “The Pirate Queen's Slave Traders: Elizabeth I and the Conjuring of the British Empire” — a voyage of discovery into the hidden history of a female ruler who surpassed Bloody Mary in wicked deeds and gross iniquity, including her concealed role in overseeing the traffic in African flesh, and yet who is, because of the withholding of pertinent information, among the most admired western women of the past five centuries.
“The Pirate Queen's Slave Traders: Elizabeth I and the Conjuring of the British Empire.”
Chapters will include:
John Hawkins: Elizabeth’s Slave-Trader in Chief
Elizabeth Invests in the Business of Slavery: “A Proven Moneymaker”
Slave Loot Propels Hawkins into Power in England
Massacre of the Irish Nobility
The Spycraft of Her Majesty’s Secret Service
The Defeat of the Armada
“Privateers” — Pirates by any other name
Elizabeth’s Enslavement of Englishmen
Conjuring the British Empire through Ritual Toponomy and Cartography
A Mandate for Prescriptive Cartography in the “Golden Age of Saturn”
Papist Inspiration for a Protestant Thaumaturge
By Sorcery All Time and Space on Earth Directed by Britannia
This is original research. It is not the pabulum fed by sychophant biographers of “Good Queen Bess.”
Furthermore, I draw your attention to the portrait (above) of Queen Mary, after Holbein, which accompanies this study. That is how the lady actually looked; rather lovely I would say, and as well-educated as her successor: multi-lingual and deeply read in the classics.
Here (below) is how she was portrayed in “Elizabeth,” the Academy Award nominated “Best Picture”:
In one respect the conventional biographies of Mary are correct in asserting that she lacked Elizabeth’s feral cunning. For example, Thomas Cranmer was the Archbishop of Canterbury who cheered Henry VIII’s crushing, with murderous fury, of the Catholic protest by the commons and gentry known as “The Pilgrimage of Grace” (Cranmer pompously sneered that the protesting yeomanry were “barbarous and savage people…unacquainted with knowledge of sacred matters”). It was he who voided Catherine’s marriage to the king and encouraged the unconscionable treatment King Henry accorded his defenseless first wife and daughter. To avoid execution as a heretic, Cranmer opportunistically converted to Catholicism after Mary became queen.
If Mary had the cunning of Elizabeth, she would have kept the sniveling, servile Cranmer alive as a prize trophy to exhibit to the nations of Europe the fact that the one time leading Protestant in the English-speaking world had turned his coat to save his hide. For the Reformers the optics would have been hugely embarrassing, if not devastating.
Mary’s tactical blunder was compounded by her rejection, in this case, of Catholicism’s own theology: there was no legitimate reason to execute the erstwhile archbishop. The clever Cranmer had officially converted to the Catholic faith. He made certain to give no sign of insincerity. Mary dispatched him to the flames anyway; an act of brutal revenge.
As queen, Elizabeth was at least as sadistic: she ordered the gentle, beatific Catholic priest-poet Edmund Campion tortured to death, after which she became the monster whose pivotal contribution to the enlargement of the trans-Atlantic slave trade has been rendered invisible. It will be unmasked here.
Both of these women made a mockery of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They were not alone: the wars of religion consumed Britain and Europe in fratricidal blood-letting for generations. The Founders of America were determined that this ravenous spirit should not slake its thirst in our nation. They succeeded in keeping this wolf at bay for nearly 250 years. It is rising again in the ranks of that branch of war Zionism known as evangelical Christianity.
Copyright ©2024 by Independent History and Research • RevisionistHistory.org
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE CONTRA CANCEL CULTURE
I am grateful to the paid subscribers who make these columns possible. Please give serious consideration to joining them. I will continue this Truth Mission for as long as I have the resources to do so. Securing those resources is a constant struggle. We have not yet obtained enough paid subscriptions to sustain the work required to produce this column weekly. Donations toward the support of my research, writing and broadcasting are gratefully received: P.O. Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816—or at this link. Thank you.
Revisionist historian Michael Hoffman explores the ascendance of the Neoplatonic-Hermetic mind virus in his book The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. He explicates the alchemical processing of humanity in Twilight Language. He is the author of eight other volumes of history and literature including Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, as well as Usury in Christendom, Judaism Discovered, The and Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People.
Michael is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and a former paid consultant to the news department of the New York Times. His books have been published in translation in Japan and France. Listen to his broadcasts on his Revisionist History® podcast, and find him on X (Twitter). He resides with his family in Idaho.
Revisionist History® is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as the trademark of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816. All Rights Reserved.
For Further Research
The Crisis of Authority in the Catholic Church
The File on Jesuit Malachi Martin
Churchianity’s Support for Israeli Genocide and “Cheers for the Talmud”
I am just now reading that Elizabeth turned to the occult arts. Your new research is much anticipated.
None of these points are hidden, nor do they need to brought out as long held secrets just being discovered. There are enough books on the times and Elizabeth specifically that neither hide nor suppress these truths. I have known about all of them for years. The author is doing a one sided hit job singling out various acts and persons who supposedly tainted the Queen and with whom she colluded, thereby being an evil person. There is a other side of the story (as there always is) that leaves out contexts, backstories or even an attempt at understanding the environments, practices and mores that guided their decision making to deal with the problems of their personal and public lives. I find that people living in current times should not be passing judgement on those living long past. These are the same tactics used by social justice types to cancel out the life of people both alive and no longer alive, with whom they disagree, who they wish to scapegoat and be the whipping boy for all their own ills. Rank cowards who derive twisted satisfaction for doing so. No respectable historian would throw such personal invective into the pages of history. Those who throw stones should live in glass houses. Perhaps the author would like to describe the horrible acts of the Inquisition, the Jesuit vow to destroy all Protestants and their calumnies to do so since 1540, the genocide by 16th century Spanish Empire exacted on at least 2/3 of the indigenous peoples of South American, it's plundering, rapine, mass murder, subjection and outright theft of the resources of it's colonies. Catholic Europe's hatred of the Protestant "bastard" Elizabeth and what she had to do to fight off the clutches of Spain and the Papacy, as well England's bankruptcy and impoverishment That would give some balance to this story. I could go on and on about this epoch with which this single woman and her government was challenged.