Tag Archives: The Monument
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 To do so, I would first need access to historical documents and correspondence located in the archives of England, then time to sort through this information and see if I could connect any dots that previous biographers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.
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)!”