Tag Archives: Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom
Looking for a midsummer’s read? A break from the ordinary? A book that you won’t find on HuffPo’s “Beach Reads” list nor the NY Times’s “Cool Books for Hot Summer Days?”
To me, summer is the best time to escape the everyday – to abandon inhibitions and expand horizons.
With that in mind, may I suggest a topic that exercises your cerebrum as you relax by the beach, pool, or in a shady mountain retreat.
Perhaps a controversial subject that will make you, heaven forbid, question what you’ve been taught about Shakespeare. OK, you know where I’m going with this, right?
Make this the summer you explore the Shakespeare Authorship Question!
Four summers ago, instead of catching up on the Stephen King novels I’d missed during the school year, I read a book that set my intellect on fire: Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom by Charles Beauclerk.
If the plays and poems of Shakespeare were written today…we would see them for what they are — shocking political works written by a court insider, someone shielded by the monarch in an unstable time of armada and reformation. (Beauclerk)
This was the first SAQ book I’d ever read, recommended to me by my former English professor, dear friend, and mentor, Sallie DelVecchio.
From there I read what is, in my opinion, the Oxfordian primer: Mark Anderson’s Shakespeare by Another Name.
“This book, with fascinating specificity, suits ‘the action to the word, the word to the action.'” (Sir Derek Jacobi on SBAN)
But if you are new to the Oxfordian Theory and want something to whet your appetite for learning more about the movers and shakers of Queen Liz’s court, I strongly advise you start out with something entertaining.
A historical fiction novel that will introduce you to the theory that challenges Shakespeare Orthodoxy: Shakespeare’s Changeling: A Fault Against the Dead by Syril Levin Kline.
Kline’s novel engages your mind in a tantalizing way. It introduces you to some key players in the Shakespeare backdrop without bogging you down with historical information overload. Shakespeare’s Changeling: A Fault Against the Dead offers a storyline more fact-based than that of the country merchant turned London playwright.
In my upcoming posts, I will chat with Ms. Kline about her book, literary inspirations, and why she feels the SAQ should be taught in mainstream academia.
‘Til then, savor these “dog days” because summer’s lease hath all too short a date!
After creating over 28 posts for my ongoing blog, Shakes-Query, I’ve completed my independent study focusing primarily on the assumption that Henry Wriothesley, the Third Earl of Southampton, was Shakespeare’s patron, as well as the poet’s muse. I have read and referenced the following biographies: The Life of Henry, Third Earl of Southampton Shakespeare’s Patron by Charlotte Carmichael Stopes, and Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, by J.P.V. Akrigg.
I also incorporated information from non-traditional Shakespearean sources including: Charles Beauclerk’s Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom and Hank Whittemore’s The Monument: “Shake-Speare’s Sonnets” by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Work on the project began during the summer but continued on throughout the fall semester.
As of this date, Shakes-Query has 183 followers and is constantly promoted via Facebook and Twitter. My blog’s readership includes: college and high school students, college professors, primary and secondary ed teachers, other WordPress bloggers, and professionals in various fields of expertise. My goal was to offer an approachable discussion platform to discuss all things “Shakespearean” and to encourage interest in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, and I believe I achieve this goal in increments every time I blog. I’ve never referred to myself as a professional educator but rather as a student who enjoys passing on the knowledge I glean along my academic journey on and off campus.
Unfortunately, I was not able to add any new insight to the already exhaustive biographical research of authors Stopes and Akrigg. To do so, I would first need access to historical documents and correspondence located in the archives of England, then time to sort through this information and see if I could connect any dots that previous biographers failed to recognize. Needless to say, that’s a feat that would require much more time than one semester allows, in addition to funding for an overseas literary expedition.
What I have learned was that the foundation for designating Southampton as Shakespeare’s Patron is based primarily on conjecture. There was never any evidence discovered that proves a relationship existed between William Shakspere of Stratford-Upon-Avon and Henry Wriothesley the Third Earl of Southampton. In fact, based upon my knowledge of class prejudices of Elizabethan England, interclass intimacy between a nobleman and a businessman was highly unlikely. The only factual evidence is that the writer of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece dedicated these works to Southampton. Mere speculation is all that connects Shakespeare’s Sonnets to this earl.
To me, there is reasonable doubt that “Shakespeare” was the man from Stratford and is most likely the pseudonym of someone else, most likely a member of the noble class.
I am grateful to the overwhelming literary information provided by my friends and mentors: Shelly Maycock, Professor of English at VA Tech; Sallie DelVecchio, Professor of English at Middlesex County College; Dr. Roger Stritmatter of Coppin State University; author Hank Whittemore; and other intellectual acquaintances of mine who continue to teach me, on a daily basis, about the many avenues and fine nuances yet to be explored in Shakespearean studies.
Keeping up with the new theories and scholarly discoveries is overwhelming at times, but always intellectually stimulating. I’ve already learned so much about the key figures in Shakespeare’s world and will continue my research both on and off campus for years to come.
Finally, I would like to thank Professor Kathleen Webber for agreeing to mentor me in this academic endeavor. Prior to taking her class, “Writing for Interactive Multimedia” at The College of New Jersey last semester, I never considered blogging. Her class introduced me to the world of social media and taught me how to utilize its diverse outlets in both a professional and educational manner. Shakes-Query was initiated as an assignment in Professor Webber’s class but continues to be a labor of love and an important part of my educational journey.
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)!”