Tag Archives: Edward de Vere
I’m back, Dear Followers, and ready to question the dogma of Shakespeare, again!
Today, I’d like to share a bit of the recent hypocrisy promoted by orthodox Shakespeare scholars in the mainstream media. None of this, however, is breaking news to many of my Facebook friends.
At the beginning of the week, on the ABC News Sunday Spotlight, viewers got a glimpse into the underground vault of the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. where 82 copies of the 233 rare, remaining copies of the First Folio are housed.
The online version of ABC’s story correctly mentions that this collection of priceless plays “dates back to 1623, seven years after [William Shakespeare’s] death.” (http://tinyurl.com/pofcclh)
Yet, just a few days later, in Ask History, a blog sponsored by “History” Channel (yeah, you know the reason for those air quotes), the anonymous blogger declares that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, could not be the true author of the works attributed to Shakespeare because
“…Oxford died in 1604, and some of Shakespeare’s greatest plays (including “King Lear,” “The Tempest” and “Macbeth”) were published after that date.” (http://tinyurl.com/nhbdmog)
So, these people are saying that the grain-hoarding merchant from Stratford-Upon-Avon, the man who is traditionally regarded as the one true Shakespeare, could have his alleged works published posthumously but that the same could not possibly be true of Oxford, who was once recognized by members of the Royal Court as Queen Elizabeth’s favorite earl and was, as per Ask History,
“…highly educated, trained as a lawyer and was known to have traveled to many of the exact places featured in Shakespeare’s plays.”
But wait, there’s more! While referencing the famous Droeshout engraving from the First Folio’s title page, Michael Witmore, Director of the Folger Shakespeare Library, produces this sparkly quote:
“People who knew him, worked with him said he looked like this…This is the picture that we think really captures the man, and this is the picture you see everywhere. This is his headshot.”
Really? Who might those people be? And, to me, that so-called “headshot” looks more like a masked figure with a dislocated shoulder!
There’s just one more thing I need to get off my chest.
When you scroll to the comments at the bottom of ABC’s “A Rare Look at Shakespeare’s First Edition at DC’s Folger Library,” you will see one lonely comment by someone named “Tom” who writes:
“A Shakespeare autograph would be worth a fortune. I’ve heard there is no known example. Correction; One article I found said there were six known.”
I attempted to reply to his comment with:
Wait…are we living in modern America, or Elizabethan England?
To all the Oxfordians out there, those “elitist snobs,” (oh, that’s one of the milder monikers for those who dare to believe that Edward de Vere was the real Shake-speare) raise your glass in honor of the poet earl!
Here’s one of my favorite Shakespearean excerpts, from Sonnet 81:
Your monument shall be my gentle verse,
Which eyes not yet created shall o’er-read;
And tongues to be, your being shall rehearse,
When all the breathers of this world are dead;
You still shall live, such virtue hath my pen,
Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.
Happy Birthday, Edward de Vere!
(As per Newsweek, December 29, 2014.)
In the Prince Tudor theory, Elizabeth I was only the Virgin Queen figuratively not literally.
It is rumored that during one of her royal progresses, particularly the one she took in August of 1572, she was intimately involved with the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere. He was, after all, the Queen’s favorite courtier at that point in time. In a letter written at that time by Gilbert Talbot to his father the Earl of Shrewsbury, the queen “delighteth more in [Oxford’s] personage and his dancing and his valiantness than any other” (Brougham 171).
In a nutshell, the Prince Tudor/Tudor Rose theory suggests that Elizabeth and Oxford had a son. He was placed in the Southampton household as the “Changeling Boy,” Henry Wriothesley, who eventually became the 3rd Earl of Southampton (Whittemore xxxviii).
As previously stated, William Cecil, Lord Burghley, had been pressuring Wriothesley to marry his granddaughter Lady Elizabeth Vere. As you may remember, she was also Oxford’s daughter.
If those first 17 Sonnets I’ve been referring to were written by Oxford using the pseudonym “Shake-speare,” wouldn’t it be incestuous for Oxford to be encouraging his own children to marry each other?
But according to records, Oxford initially rejected Elizabeth Vere as his child; in fact, he separated from his wife Anne in 1576 on charges of her alleged infidelity, and refused to see his daughter until almost 6 years later when he accepted her as his own.
This insight conveniently clears up the incest factor, at least during the Wriothesley-Vere marital negotiations.
Now, let’s return to those 17 Procreation Sonnets, and view them through the Prince Tudor lens as per Hank Whittemore‘s The Monument: “Shake-Speares Sonnets” by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. The following is a brief excerpt from Whittemore’s 860+ page exposition on the entire collection of Shake-speare’s Sonnets.
Opening the Fair Youth series, Oxford uses the royal “we” to command “fairest creatures” (royal children) to beget “increase” (heirs) to ensure that “beauty’s Rose” (Elizabeth’s Tudor Rose dynasty) might not end upon her death (“Rose” is capitalized and italicized in Q):
From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty’s Rose might never die
– Sonnet 1, lines 1-2
This translates as the announcement of a dynastic diary:
From royal children the Queen and I command heirs,
So Elizabeth’s Tudor Rose Dynasty might not perish
From here on, we can view Edward de Vere as consistently using “fair” for Southampton’s royalty and “beauty” for Elizabeth and the Tudor lineage he inherited from her.
The Queen was known as “Beauty,” while “Rose” could not fail to echo the Tudor Rose dynasty begun by her grandfather, Henry VII, in 1485.
The symbolic Tudor Rose represents the union between the waring English houses of Lancaster and York which came as a result of a marriage between Henry VII of the Tudor dynasty and Elizabeth of York.
After this historical marriage in 1486, the War of the Roses came to an end and the Tudor Rose symbol, which combined the white and red roses of the two houses, was created.
And, yes, within that excerpt from Whittemore’s book lies another zinger which connects to a variant of the Prince Tudor theory. This is referred to as Prince Tudor Theory Part 2 (“PT 2”).
This extension of the theory posits Edward de Vere as yet another bastard son of the Queen with her “stepfather,” Thomas Seymour as the father. Elizabeth would have been merely 14 at the time of conception.
In the 2011 film Anonymous, Robert Cecil, played by Edward Hogg, relishes the moment as he reveals the identity of Oxford’s biological mother to the Earl. At this point in the film, the devastated de Vere has just witnessed the failure of Essex and Southampton in their revolt against Cecil’s factions. (See my earlier post “Guilty of Treason: Part 1” for some historical info on this event.)
In the DVD commentary on the film, writer John Orloff states that he did not want the PT 2 scene included but that director Roland Emmerich wanted it to remain.
Yes, this is the issue that divides otherwise like-minded Oxfordians into separate camps. So, you can choose to opt in or out! What are my feelings on the topic? While I am intrigued by the evidence that shows a correlation between Elizabeth, Oxford, and the Earl of Southampton, I am also hesitant to assume full-membership into the PT camp.
I am curious if there is any evidence that can prove a connection between Oxford and Mary Browne. I would like to study that possibility more in depth.
But I do highly recommend Hank Whittemore’s blog: http://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/
or purchase a copy of either Shakespeare’s Son and His Sonnets or The Monument for a more comprehensive look into his interpretation of Shakespeare’s Sonnets, as well as other matters regarding Oxford and the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
I’ve hesitated to write this blog post for quite some time now because just the mention of it can trigger a volatile debate. What I’m referring to is the Prince Tudor, or Tudor Rose theory.
Since I have hinted at it in several posts already, it’s time for me to elaborate for those who are new to the concept.
CAUTION: For those of you who feel strongly against this theory, this would be the time to change the channel!
There are a few variations to this theory, but I will focus primarily on excerpts from Charles Beauclerk’s book, Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom and in The Monument by Hank Whittemore. Since this project’s main focus is on Southampton, I won’t get too involved in de Vere’s story right now.
To begin, I have chosen to discuss this theory because it provides a specific lens for interpreting the Sonnets and therefore relates to my independent study. In this blog project, however, I’ve only focused upon the 17 Procreation Sonnets and the interpretation that implies they were written by Shakespeare to a young man.
If this is true, and if Henry Wriothesley was the addressee of these poems, it appears as if the poet is encouraging the young earl to marry and start making “copies” of himself.
The language is intimate, indeed, but it can be viewed from a homosexual lover-to-lover perspective or even from that of a father-to-son relationship. Let’s assume the collection of Sonnets are of an autobiographical nature, and that the poet is addressing the young man as if he was his own son.
If you recall, in my previous post entitled “The Young Earl: ‘Harry’ Wriothesley,” I mentioned that the 2nd Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley “Senior,” had been imprisoned for his involvement in the Ridolfi Plot.
When an earl spent time in the Tower, he did not necessarily live in squalor, and may have been allowed conjugal visits.
So, we cannot completely rule out “HW Sr.” as the biological father of “HW Jr.,” but, suspiciously, soon after the elder Wriothesley was released from prison, his relationship with his wife, Mary Browne, went downhill.
The Countess was moved to another estate and forbidden to see her young son.
To quote Beauclerk:
Mary Browne, the Countess of Southampton, had given birth to a son on October 6, 1573, but there is no record of a baptism for the baby, who may have died in infancy or been placed with another family in preparation for the adoption of the queen’s son. Either way, her child was probably illegitimate and not a Wriothesley at all, for the earl, her husband, was in the Tower when the child was conceived and she was rumored to be having an affair with “a common person” by the name of Donesame, pretext enough in those days for the removal of the baby. (106)
Stopes explains how young Harry was kept in his father’s custody and that the “Earl secluded himself more and more among his followers and estranged himself from his wife” (3).
Although the Countess attempted to make contact and explain herself to her husband, her attempts were hampered by the messengers, the Earl’s servants. One in particular, Thomas Dymock, seems to have been the most influential in keeping the couple separated and was even designated an executor of the Earl’s will.
As mentioned in my post, “The Young Earl: Harry Wriothesley,” Harry’s wardship was “sold” and as an underage “Queen’s Ward” (Stopes 17), William Cecil became Harry’s legal guardian.
Yes, I’m sure you caught those ominous words in Beauclerk’s quote: “the adoption of the queen’s son.”
More details to follow in “Southampton and the Tudor Rose Theory (Part 2 of 2)!”
OK, time for some personal commentary on my Southampton independent study project.
I’ve had my nose buried in two well-respected biographies about Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton, since the spring semester ended:
The Life of Henry, Third Earl of Southampton Shakespeare’s Patron by Charlotte Carmichael Stopes and Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton by G.P.V. Akrigg.
While I’ve learned so much about this nobleman from these authors, what baffles me the most is their assumptions that Southampton was Shakespeare’s patron.
In the Elizabethan era, when a writer had secured the patronage of a wealthy nobleman, an expression of gratitude for receiving payment from the writer to the patron would typically grace the opening page.
Diana Price, in her book Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem, writes: “Shakespeare’s two dedications to Southampton make no mention of ‘bounty’ received or ‘pay and patronage'” (143).
If we read over the wording on the dedication pages of both Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, we can confirm Price’s statement. (click on images to enlarge)
In following orthodox authorship theory, we can view these dedications as the poet’s attempt to gain patronage; yet, nothing in the wording implies it was ever accepted. Furthermore, there is no evidence connecting the man from Stratford-upon-Avon with Southampton. In fact, neither Stopes nor Akrigg were able to produce anything more than conjecture on this imaginary relationship. Here are some examples of the writers’ assumptions I came across in my research:
Here must be introduced … the present writer’s theory of Southampton’s life, based upon long work and logical inferences. … It seems most likely that Southampton introduced himself, willing the player to come to him … because [Southampton] felt that the poet also was suffering something of what he suffered, rebellion against his fate and its limitations. He felt he must have a private talk with this “man from Stratford,” and took him home with him to supper. (Stopes 40-41)
If the present writer must add his own guess as to where and when Shakespeare and Southampton first met, he would suggest a backstage meeting in a London playhouse sometime in 1591-92. The person who first presented Shakespeare to the Earl may have been Sir George Carew, whose marriage in 1580 to a Clopton heiress had made him a great man around Stratford … he could be expected to take an interest in a Stratford man with a mounting reputation in London. (Akrigg 193)
Even though Akrigg had gained access to the Wriothesley Papers the late 1960s, he was no more successful at connecting the dots as Stopes had been in her 1922 endeavor.
Now I want you to peruse the personal tone of those dedications again. Keeping in mind the social class ideology of Elizabethan England, where class barriers existed, how do you suppose Shakespeare got away with such a public display of intimacy between himself and an earl? When pondering this, leave out whatever romantic notions you may have acquired from Hollywood!
Take this thought one step further; assuming that Sonnets 1-17, the so-called Procreation Sonnets, were directed to the 19-year old Henry Wriothesley, what was Shakespeare’s impetus to urge this young earl to marry and procreate?
If he authored the sonnets, the aforementioned poems, and perhaps other masterpieces from the famous canon we attribute to Shakespeare, what was his connection to Southampton?
(to be continued…)
Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was born on April 12, 1550 at Castle Hedingham.
For those of us who dare to question the authorship of the Shakespeare canon, de Vere is the strongest candidate for the role. Those who align themselves with this scholarship are known as “Oxfordians.”
To learn more about Edward de Vere, check out the websites and blogs below: