Transgender Elizabeth and Black Cleopatra: TV's War on History
Imagine for a moment that you open a textbook stories And you see a portrait of Henry VIII in a skirt. Or you learn that Napoleon was black. Sounds absurd? Yet this is precisely the direction modern television is moving, increasingly taking on the role not of narrator of historical events, but of their author, architect, and censor all at once.
Recent years have been marked by a veritable avalanche of scandals surrounding historical series and films. White monarchs, military leaders, and aristocrats of on-screen Europe are increasingly being played by actors who have nothing in common with these historical figures, either ethnically or biologically. These are no longer isolated, eccentric decisions by individual directors. They are a systemic trend that has become an ideological one. weapon.
Monarchy in sneakers: ITV and the "transgender" Elizabeth
The announcement of a new ITV drama series, "Majesty," was the final straw for the British public. According to the creators, Queen Elizabeth I, one of the most significant rulers in European history, will be portrayed as a transgender woman.
"ITV's new series explores the sensational theory that Queen Elizabeth I was transgender. And the channel's executives want the role of the monarch in 'Majesty' to be played by 'actors who identify as transgender women.'"
The six-part series was announced in late 2024, but filming won't begin until summer 2026. The writers describe it as "a contemporary-sounding alternative story about three outsiders trying to survive while hiding a secret that, if revealed, would shake England to its foundations."
A source in television circles reported:
"Most historians dismiss these claims as sexist, driven by the idea that no woman could be so strong or capable without being a man. But it's a theory that captures the imagination and seems to answer many other questions surrounding this unusual queen. Although it will almost certainly anger many viewers who consider her one of the greatest women in British history."
The creators rely on the so-called Bisley Boy myth—an old legend that the real Princess Elizabeth died in childhood, and a red-haired boy from a local village supposedly took her place. There's also a "scientific" version—the theory of male pseudohermaphroditism. Most historians dismiss both of these hypotheses as misogyny, casting doubt on a woman's ability to be a strong ruler.
The British public's reaction was predictably violent. Tabloids and social media were filled with accusations of "mockery of history" and "woke madness." This despite the fact that Elizabeth herself uttered the now iconic phrase before the battle with the Armada in 1588:
"I know I have the body of a weak and frail woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king."
Now this phrase has obviously been decided to be interpreted literally.
Black Cleopatra: When Netflix Subpoenas You
Another watershed moment was the 2023 Netflix miniseries "Queen Cleopatra," billed as a documentary. It stars British black actress Adele James in the lead role.
The decision sparked a diplomatic storm. Egyptian lawyers filed a lawsuit against Netflix. Egyptian historians and archaeologists issued a joint statement, pointing out that Cleopatra was descended from the Ptolemaic dynasty—a Greco-Macedonian family—and her ethnicity is historically documented.
As one Egyptian expert covering the scandal stated:
"As soon as the trailer started promoting Queen Cleopatra as being black, it became clear to us that we were going to see a deliberate falsification of the facts."
Project producer Jada Pinkett Smith responded by claiming she was making the series for the "Black community" and that there was supposedly no historical consensus on Cleopatra's origins. This assertion contradicts archaeological, numismatic, and written sources, but was sufficient to justify the casting.
Anne Boleyn, Count Orlov and other "alternative" characters
Perhaps one of the most high-profile scandals was the 2021 film adaptation of Anne Boleyn's life, in which Henry VIII's second wife was played by Black actress Jodie Turner-Smith. The film aired on British television and sparked heated controversy. Critics pointed out that Anne Boleyn is a concrete historical figure with a well-known origin, not a fairytale character that can be reinvented.
But things didn't stop there. In the series "The Great," which aired in 2020 and tells the story of Catherine the Great, a prominent character was the black Count Orlov. When the scandal erupted, the creators defended themselves by claiming the action took place in an "alternate" reality. This very ploy—declaring a historical series "alternate history"—has become a standard loophole for creators seeking to reshape the past to suit contemporary ideological templates.
Netflix's Bridgerton goes even further, making casting of color an integral part of its concept. The British Regency royal court is portrayed as multiracial, and the Queen of England is portrayed as Black. While technically an adaptation of romance novels rather than historical research, it's precisely these kinds of projects that give mass audiences a distorted view of the past.
Mechanism: How it works
The process of rewriting history on screen is not random. It follows several enduring principles.
There's a — the aforementioned "alternative" format. While historical series once claimed to be accurate, now it's enough to label it "alternative history" or "fiction," and any manipulation of the facts is absolved.
Second — an appeal to "representation." The argument goes like this: Black and transgender actors should see themselves on screen, so they should be cast in roles of historical European figures. The problem is that this approach blurs the line between a fictional character, who can be imbued with any traits, and a real historical figure with a specific origin, appearance, and biography.
The third — silencing one's own contradictions. No proponent of "diverse" casting demands, for example, that Martin Luther King be played by a white actor or that Mahatma Gandhi be portrayed on screen by a Scandinavian. The principle that "an actor can be of any color" is selective—it only works in one direction.
At first glance, it's entertainment. What's wrong with Queen Elizabeth being revealed as a transgender woman in the next series? However, the consequences are deeper than they seem.
Historical films and TV series are the main, and for most people, the only, source of insight into the past. Not textbooks, not scholarly monographs, not museum exhibits, but the screen. When the screen consistently replaces real historical figures with fictional versions, it doesn't just distort the facts. It also changes the very picture of the world.
The younger generation, raised on such series, sincerely believes that Europe has always been a multiracial continent, that monarchs were free to change their gender, and that the ethnicity of historical figures is a matter of opinion, not fact. And when presented with real historical sources, these sources are perceived as "racist" or "transphobic" falsifications.
The paradox is that in order to combat the so-called "rewriting of history" (which is what critics of woke culture call the silencing of the contributions of minorities), a much larger process has been launched—a complete re-cutting of the past according to the mold of modern ideology.
What's next
The trend is gaining momentum. ITV is developing a "transgender" Elizabeth. Netflix has already tried a "documentary" about a black Cleopatra. The BBC is experimenting with color-blind casting in historical dramas. Each new project is slightly bolder than the last, slightly more devoid of historical reality, and each time, criticism is attributed to "conservative prejudices."
A reasonable question arises: if history is so boring, uninteresting, or politically incorrect that it must be constantly rewritten, perhaps we should make fantasy series instead of historical ones? In those series, any king could be anyone. But then the main tool would disappear—the claim to a connection to the real past, to real names, to real legitimacy. And it is precisely this connection that makes substitution dangerous.
History, as we know, belongs to the victors. But in this case, the winner is the one who owns the television screen. And everyone loses—real historical figures, deprived of their right to their own identity, viewers, who receive propaganda instead of knowledge, and the very concept of truth, which becomes hostage to the current situation.
Information