The myth that Queen Elizabeth had Smallpox

 On the 10 of October 1562 Queen Elizabeth said she felt unwell and decided to take a bath. Later she started to feel cold and then later on run a high temperature. On the 12 October her doctors diagnosed Smallpox. The situation didn't improve and by the 16 October the doctors told the Council that her life was in great danger and she was unlikely to last more than a couple of days. The next day the fever had broke and by the 25 October she was out of bed and back to normal. 

But the diagnosis of Smallpox would then lead to lots of problems for historians, who have accepted it without question. The first problem being that Smallpox leaves scars, especially on the face. Even the Queen herself knew this and was worried about it. But it is recorded that there were none. This belief of scars has not disappeared and bizarre theories have come about to explain it. 

So if you ask GOOGLE today if Elizabeth 1st had Smallpox this is what you get:

Yes, Elizabeth I contracted smallpox in October 1562 at Hampton Court Palace. The 29-year-old queen fell severely ill with a violent fever and nearly died. Although she made a miraculous recovery, the disease left her with permanent facial scars and thinning hair, prompting her to use heavy white lead makeup and wigs to conceal the damage for the rest of her life

Despite the fact: Elizabeth survived smallpox as a young woman, though none of the portraits of her show the scars she probably had from the disease.

And also an eyewitness testimony: A member of the court reported that she had emerged virtually unscathed: 'The Queen is whole of the small-pox, not having had many signs on her face.'

The white make up, thus in the story was started to be applied to cover up the scars from 1562, straight away.  But the white faced queen pictures do not appear till many years later. And there's evidence in many portraits with white faces to show the former pink flesh has faded away from the picture leaving the white face. 

Elizabethan Doctors

So their doctors are not like modern doctors. Though they were university-trained, they were very expensive, though not a problem for the Queen. But they believed (wrongly) on the ancient theory of the "four humors" (blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm). To them illnesses occurred when these bodily fluids fell out of balance, prompting treatments like bloodletting, herbal remedies, and even astrology to restore equilibrium. Nevertheless the doctors had seen many cases of Smallpox and knew the symptoms. What they didn't have was the microscopes to see the bugs that was causing the diseases! And the trouble with Smallpox and many other diseases is that some have the same symptoms and diagnosing the difference a nightmare! One very common sickness that does look like smallpox is Chickenpox. But no doctor back then even knew of it's existence! In fact it was not even noticed till after Elizabeth's death in 1603. Even then it was thought to a variation on Smallpox itself.

English physician William Heberden in 1767 finally discovered that Chickenpox was unique and not Smallpox.  So how difficult is it to tell the difference. 

  The woman on the left has Chickenpox and the right Smallpox

So it was possible that Elizabeth had Chickenpox and the modern diagnosis fits in with the facts:

In adults, chickenpox is typically much more severe than in children, leading to a higher risk of complications like pneumonia. The illness typically begins with flu-like symptoms 1-2 days before a rash breaks out, followed by a highly distinctive, itchy blister-like rash that eventually crusts over to form scabs 

But the main thing is that Chickenpox does not normally leave scars if the blisters heal without interference.

Since there was no scars on the face afterwards it's likely Elizabeth had Chickenpox. But after Roy Strong evented the Mask of Youth story then Elizabeth after 1562 could never be considered good looking and the reason for this was the none existent scars on her face. 

Therefore Elizabeth could never look like this, even if she did!

How Elizabeth 1st Really Looked

How The Queen Looked

I am now able to show what Elizabeth looked like thanks to AI technology. This wonderful bit of tech, will correct the original artists impressions of the face of the Queen, based on their understanding of how faces should be drawn. Since nobody would really have faces like the way they were originally drawn. I can really say I have never seen a woman's face like the way Elizabethen women are drawn. Even actress, in modern films with the correct same style of clothing do not look like them. 

So my first image is one that I partially created manually to correct the loss of colour that the pictured suffered. The Armada Portrait of the Queen. But the face and hair have been transformed using the AI tech.

The next image was a pattern mask, but the AI has picked out the same face style as the above. Consitant with the date of the image. 

The next image shows the affects of age on her. 

The following image does the same. But the silver of the jewels shows up black. I have corrected the problem on the next image below it. 

The next three images are all based on a young Elizabeth minature. The results are all based on the same image. Each version offers different insites as to the style of dress and jewels she wore. 

Another image of  her when young, but not a miniture this time. 

The next image shows the finery of her style. It is also when she was older too

The next version is another Hilliard minature. It has already been used on this page, but it shows an alternative to it. The older pictures of her show how her face, lost the slender looks of her youth and maturity, but remained beautiful. 

In coronation robes 

The next was unfinshed 

The next two I wanted to show you, but with the note that the hair colour is wrong. 

The first was exchanged with Mary Queen of Scots and carries her mark, showing she owned the picture

The next one shows the white of her dress, much more than the original

More images to come. 

A top 100 based on total sales each week

 This has been transferred from the weekly section.

While doing the 1983 charts I came up with the idea of doing what the top 100 would look like if I just based it on the total sales of each record in the chart. So I did the chart for the 24 July like that, I also worked out what the previous week would have been like, and included that in the last week column. The weeks would be the same of course. I couldn't do the highest position one, because that would have required many weeks of charts to do. I am including the chart below to show you. Some notes of explanation are needed. The red pen lines show you what will drop out. As you can see they are all over the place, not just at the bottom of the chart! Such a chart would see records drop out from number one! New Order's record would have spent 2 weeks at the top. Sales with the same figures are placed in order of the same chart as presented. This chart is also a one off! 

I should point out that you could do this with any other charts if you know the weekly sales figures. Even those by the OCC. 

First off the 24 July chart without the adjustment and then the chart with.