History Extra Podcast — "Who Stole the Tudor Crown?"

Date: November 14, 2025
Guests: Historian Tracey Borman
Host: Rob Attar

Episode Overview

This episode explores a groundbreaking discovery that challenges centuries of accepted history regarding the Tudor-Stuart succession. Historian Tracey Borman discusses new research revealing that Elizabeth I never named her successor, calling into question the legitimacy and smoothness of the Stuart accession and offering a fresh perspective on one of England’s most pivotal transitions of power.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The British Library Discovery — Rewriting the Succession (03:09–05:53)

• The Find: PhD student Helena Rutovska examined William Camden’s original manuscript (Elizabeth I’s biographer) and, using transmitted light technology, uncovered that significant portions had been altered — with pastings, crossouts, and rewritten sections.
• What was revealed: Under pressure from James I, Camden rewrote sections to portray James more favorably and, crucially, fabricated Elizabeth’s supposed deathbed naming of James as her chosen successor.
• Tracey Borman:

  “All of these pastings over were thanks to James breathing down Camden’s neck and getting him to literally rewrite history... He rewrote the accounts of Elizabeth’s deathbed and put in her mouth words that she never actually said... that’s a complete fabrication.” (03:27–05:30)

2. The Politics of Legitimacy — James I’s Motivations (06:09–08:32)

• Why Did James Care? Even years into his reign, James felt his hold on the English throne was tenuous. The Gunpowder Plot (1605) and tension with Parliament and Catholics left his popularity low.
• James’ PR Campaign: The pressure to retroactively secure his legitimacy led James to have Camden "put words in Elizabeth’s mouth." (06:09–08:32)
• Memorable Quote:

  “James really almost has to... put words in Elizabeth’s mouth to make it seem to his English subjects that he was the one Elizabeth wanted. So really it’s Jacobean PR, big time.” (08:20)

3. The Effect of Camden’s Annals on Posterity (08:32–11:35)

• Short-term Impact: Camden delayed publishing and only released it in Latin in 1615, limiting its immediate influence.
• Long-term Legacy: Despite limitations in James’ lifetime, Camden’s account shaped historical consensus for generations.
• Tracey’s Reflection:

  “It had a huge impact in the centuries that followed… you just take it as read that Elizabeth left her crown to James.” (10:02)

• Notable Fact: Camden was considered a reliable source, having access to extensive original materials provided by Lord Burleigh.

4. Elizabeth I’s Reluctance to Name an Heir (11:47–14:59)

• Main Reasons:
  • Security: Elizabeth experienced first-hand the instability created by rival claimants (her own troubles under Mary I, her sister).
  • Control: Elizabeth wished to keep herself at the center of focus and power (“queen bee in the hive”).
  • Risk: The absence of an heir could’ve led to civil war if she died prematurely (i.e., her smallpox scare).
• Memorable Language:

  “[On Parliament’s pressure] She refers to ‘the labored orations out of jangling mouths’... you can see her fury, the spiky handwriting and the crossings out. She’s like, ‘how dare you ask me about this again! Treason to talk about a sovereign’s death…’” (13:46)

5. Main Contenders for the English Throne (15:05–17:40)

• Tangled Claims: Many lines vied for the throne, largely descended from Henry VIII’s sisters, Mary and Margaret.
  • Notable contenders: Mary, Queen of Scots (James’ mother), the Grey sisters (descendants of Mary), Henry Hastings (Earl of Huntingdon, Plantagenet blood), Lady Margaret Stanley, and Isabella, the Spanish Infanta.
  • James’ Claim: Technically illegal under Henry VIII’s laws, which barred the Stuart line.
• Outcome: As rivals dropped away, only James and Arbella Stuart (another Stuart family member) had serious claims by the end.

6. Elizabeth’s Divide-and-Conquer Tactics (20:05–22:55)

• Method: Elizabeth maintained ambiguity and played rival claimants against each other — notably manipulating Arbella Stuart's position while ultimately smoothing the way for James.
• Tracey on Elizabeth’s Motivations:

  “She liked to play off the rival claimants against each other, showing favor to one one moment and then to another the next.” (20:17)

• Personal Sentiment: Despite legal technicalities and knowing James’ flaws, Elizabeth considered him the "best of a bad lot."

7. The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots — Impact on Anglo-Scottish Relations (23:05–25:06)

• James’ Ambivalence: Raised hostile to his mother, he was publicly aggrieved by Mary’s execution, but didn’t seriously jeopardize his own claim by acting against Elizabeth.
• Elizabeth’s Evasion: Signed the execution warrant but blamed others — “I never meant [to execute her]," she claimed.
• Tracey’s Summation:

  “And let’s just not mention that small matter of the fact I chopped your mother’s head off.” (25:03)

8. Robert Cecil’s Role in the Succession — Backstage Architect (25:18–29:03)

• Strategist: Robert Cecil, son of famed Elizabethan advisor Burleigh, adopted secret correspondence and preparation to facilitate James’ accession — advising both James and securing England against uprisings and foreign claimants.
• Detail: Cecil even drafted James’ accession proclamation before Elizabeth’s death.
• Elizabeth’s Awareness: Likely knew of Cecil’s activities and kept control until the end. Her famous retort to Cecil:

  “Little man must is not a word to use to princes.” (28:55)

9. The View from Below — The Common People’s Perspective (30:05–32:16)

• England’s Xenophobia: Significant reluctance to accept a “foreign” Scottish king; many would have favored a native candidate in line with Henry VIII’s wishes.
• Anecdote: The mayor of Northampton refused to proclaim James king until he received a second confirmation from the council, reflecting public suspicion.
• Memorable Terminology:

  “They called them [Scots] beggarly blue caps and all these insulting terms... They didn’t want a Scotsman on the throne of England.” (30:58)

10. Rethinking the “Smooth” Succession — Implications of the New Discovery (32:16–34:17)

• Key Revision: The Stuart succession was not a fait accompli; several other claimants had real chances and James’ legitimacy was manufactured after the fact.
• Long-term Consequences: James’ disregard for the English “rules” (especially parliamentary cooperation) set patterns that escalated under his son Charles, ultimately leading to civil war and the temporary end of the monarchy.
• Tracey’s Conclusion:

  “Kings and queens reigned; they didn’t rule. And we could say that had its genesis in this new discovery and in the lie that started the Stuart accession to the throne of England.” (34:11)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “He rewrote the, the accounts of Elizabeth’s deathbed and put in her mouth words that she never actually said.” – Tracey Borman (05:28)
• “So really it’s Jacobean PR, big time.” – Tracey Borman (08:32)
• “You just take it as read that Elizabeth left her crown to James.” – Tracey Borman (10:05)
• “Treason to talk about a sovereign’s death.” – Tracey Borman, quoting Elizabeth I (13:55)
• “She liked to play off the rival claimants against each other.” – Tracey Borman (20:17)
• “Little man must is not a word to use to princes.” – Elizabeth I to Robert Cecil, as quoted by Tracey Borman (28:55)
• “…the lie that started the Stuart accession to the throne of England.” – Tracey Borman (34:11)

Segment Timestamps

• [03:09] — Discovery of Camden’s manuscript alteration
• [05:53] — James I’s motivations for historical revision
• [08:32] — Effect (or lack thereof) of Camden’s Annals in James’s time
• [11:47] — Reasons for Elizabeth’s silence on succession
• [15:05] — Overview of major rival claimants
• [20:05] — Elizabeth’s manipulation of claimants
• [23:05] — The Mary, Queen of Scots episode
• [25:18] — Robert Cecil’s pivotal role
• [30:05] — English public’s view on Scottish succession
• [32:16] — Consequences for our understanding of the Tudor-Stuart transition

Final Thoughts

This episode provides a nuanced, revelatory perspective on the Tudor to Stuart transition, challenging established history and highlighting both the manipulations of those in power and the uncertainty of the succession. Tracey Borman’s engaging storytelling, grounded in new research, offers fresh insight into Elizabethan statecraft, dynastic rivalry, and how the rewriting of history can shape perceptions for centuries.

Recommended for anyone interested in Tudor/Stuart history, royal succession, or the ways historical 'facts' can be shaped by political needs.