1:44 pm
June 7, 2010
Okay, so I just finished reading Paul Steitz's Oxford (2001), which was interesting, but ultimately more humorous than scholastic. His main assertion, without foundation, is that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was Shakespeare and also the son of Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour.
Fine, I've heard that argument before and generally ignored it. After reading this book, I've come to understand how people with hard-line beliefs can rewrite history, ignore facts, and twist any small detail to fit their theories. I have nothing against the author personally, but if you are going to argue something, argue it well. The book is wrought with historical errors and poor argumentation.
He bases much of his theory that Elizabeth gave birth to Oxford on three main sources: Elizabeth being moved to live with the Denny’s in 1548, after her fall out with Katherine Parr; an account by the Duchess of Feria (a known Catholic and hater of Elizabeth), and a letter Elizabeth wrote to the Lord Protector addressing rumors of her being with child.
The author questions the following: Was Elizabeth the Virgin Queen?; Did she give birth to children?; Did Oxford write Shakespeare?; etc. Okay, the answer to these questions, according to Streitz, is YES!!! Mind you, yes without a shred of actual evidence. Much of his evidence is questionable assertion, rumor, and innuendo.
So, here is one version of history (please note the heavy sarcasm): Elizabeth gave birth to six children.
1) Oxford with Seymour, 2) Mary Sidney with Robert Dudley, 3) Robert Cecil with Dudley (yes, that Robert Cecil), 4) Robert Devereaux with Dudley (future Earl of Essex), 5) Elizabeth Leighton with Dudley, and 6) Henry Wriothesley (Earl of Southampton) with Oxford himself. Wow, she was sure busy concealing pregnancies over the years! According to Streitz, all academic historians of Elizabeth (and Shakespeare) lie, conceal, distort, oppress, and silence opposition and facts to anything negative against Elizabeth or Shakespeare. The true Elizabeth has never been revealed by historians
Not only that, Oxford wrote Shakespeare, but did not put his real name on it. In fact, Shakespeare is one of Oxford’s many pen names (amongst others: Christopher Marlowe). Since Oxford is Shakespeare, Oxford's biography can be found within Hamlet, thus like Hamlet and his mother, Queen Gertrude (a la Elizabeth I), carried on an incestuous relationship.
The information used to support Oxford as Shakespeare is lengthy, but nothing concrete, more supposition and what ifs.
My issue with the Oxfordians theory about Oxford being Shakespeare is how more plays could be written after Oxford’s death in 1604? According to Steritz, Oxford did not really die in 1604; he just went missing and died later. He went to the Mersea. Why this theory? When Oxford “died” in 1604, there was not fanfare over his death.
Mind you, these are just my opinions of the book. I would recommend reading it, so that you can form your own opinions on Oxford, Shakespeare, and Elizabeth’s life.
In my opinion, I do not really care who actually wrote Shakespeare. I am glad someone did.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
4:40 pm
September 22, 2010
History is full of riddles and mysteries.There are always questions and hidden facts.But Elizabeth was in fact antagonized and prejudiced.She was daughter of scandalous Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn,a woman much blacknamed who got beheaded on charges of adultery and high treason.Somehow,for the age it is understandable why people expected of her sexual scandals.When she became Queen,she had many enemies who made tales of her(just like with her mother) and for our age,she is still a riddle,the Virgin Queen.Who was this small woman who raised an empire?Why she never got married?Was she really a virgin?And so many theories made their way and have made their own universe.The whole Elizabeth was a man,Elizabeth was Shakespeare,Elizabeth was Shakespeare's mother,Elizabeth had at least a dozen of children etc.Her mystery offers spectaculation but back then,things were pretty tight.Elizabeth was a Queen,followed closely by a Court and spied on since she was a child.How would she get away with hiding her pregnacies and her affairs.If so much a gesture went beyond court formalities,there were many good-doers willing to report her misbehavior.
This whole theory seems impossible to me.Elizabeth having six children and no one noticed?I mean,if it said she had one,with a grain of salt,it might seem possible…An accidental pregnacy,while she was unprotected and powerlless,by Seymour seems a possible plot(a fictional one,but more convincing than others).But having children around,especially while Queen(and one fathered by her own child?How sick is that?)is not even a good fictional theory.It has no real basis other than unbased rumors.Personally I believe Elizabeth would never risk her throne and reputation like that,and if she did it would have been hard to get away with it.And if she did have one,two,six or nine children,wouldn't she marry for once,for the sake of having her line on the throne?Wouldn't she promote her children in court,titles,she was Queen she would even try put one in the succesion(if she had a daughter or a son,wouldn't she try to marry him or her with the left Tudor succesors?).
All in all,I am a firm believer that Elizabeth never had children.It is impossible that she would have any children and no one ever find out.As for Oxford and the question who wrote Shakespeare's plays,neither do I really care who wrote them as long as someone did.It seems an interesting read and it seems to go into much effort to showcase his point but I can't help but feel that he tries too much to convice that what he writes is true.I mean that I feel that he tries a lot to manipulate the facts.He says that every other historian wrote lies on them,that Elizabeth went through multiple pregnacies(and I can't get over the incestious one),Oxford's faked death etc.Shakespeare might have been fictional,a persona for an other writer but this is something that we can only spectaculate.The others seemed more to me as a complex fictional novel
8:35 pm
November 18, 2010
12:44 pm
February 24, 2010
11:04 pm
October 31, 2010
12:08 pm
June 7, 2010
Anne,
The whole incest-pregnancy-Elizabeth-Oxford theory is so crazy that no one could possibly take it seriously. Well except for Streitz! I have no problem with theorizing about who Shakespeare may or may not be, but I cannot really ascertain why Elizabeth's personal life figures into it. The only rationale I could find was the argue for Oxford writing Hamlet, and the reasons for the incest overtones to Hamlet's relationship with Gertrude.
I read a little more on the whole Shakespeare Authorship Question and the Prince Tudor Theory I and II. From what I understand is there are few Oxfordians who buy into Streitz's theory (thank God!), and agree with the historical community that Oxford's birth date was in 1550, not 1548.
While the Prince Tudor Theory I does not agree with Oxford being Elizabeth's son, the theory is that Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, is the son of Elizabeth and Oxford. According to Wikipedia (which is never reliable), there are several books that argue this point, and some that don't.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
12:48 pm
February 24, 2010
3:07 pm
June 7, 2010
Just an FYI: After I posted my reply earlier today, I did some more searching on the Oxford/Elizabeth affair. In late 2011, a movie titled “Anonymous” will be relased. It will explore some of the Oxfordian theories (such as Elizabeth giving birth to Oxford, etc.) I am not sure what to make of it. A bit of rubbish, I assume.
The movie is listed on the Internet Movie Database.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn