Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I

Rating:
Summary: An Earl of Oxford, Queen Elizabeth 1 and Shakespeare
Review: "Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth" by Paul Streitz (published by Oxford Institute Press, 2001) is an extraordinary and provocative book. It is likely to be considered totally unacceptable to "Stratfordian" Shakespearean scholars, who believe that plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare can only be the work of the celebrated man of that name, born in Stratford-upon-Avon and christened "Gulielmus Shakspere" in 1564. By contrast, the book will be welcomed by "Oxfordians" who believe that the same plays and poetry should instead be attributed to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, born in 1548.

This authorship question has been growing for several decades. Streitz has now contributed to the debate by compiling historical evidence to suggest that Elizabeth I was the mother of the Bard, that the biological father was Thomas Seymour, and that the 16th Earl of Oxford (John de Vere) was his foster-father. These suggestions may be considered preposterous by many critics, but Streitz obviously would not have dared to publish his book if he did not have some substance to advance them.

Consider the so-called "Virgin Queen". Streitz notes that "in over four hundred years, there have been no critical investigations of whether or not Elizabeth had children". Evidently there had been rumours circulating in 1549, when Elizabeth was just 15 years old. In a letter addressed to Edward Seymour, the Lord Protector, the princess herself referred to "shameful Schandlers" (slanders) that she was "with Child". In a second letter she appealed again to the Lord Protector, requesting that "no such rumours should be spread". Apparently she succeeded in this regard. Now, 450 years later, Streitz is the first person to link the "Schandlers" with events in the summer of 1548, when a child was born in suspiciously secret circumstances to a "very fair young lady" of about "fifteen or sixteen years of age". There is no proof that this young lady was princess Elizabeth, but Streitz considers this as a possibility in the context of events which he strings together to make a possible if not proven case. Notably, suspicions are associated with "the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the birth of the saide Edward, now Earle of Oxforde" (to quote from a late 16th century document)..

There is no doubt that the 17th Earl of Oxford was given opportunities to study in Cambridge (in 1564) and in Oxford (1566), and that he travelled to France and Italy (1575). Further, there is no doubt that Edward de Vere did write poetry, but not every modern scholar would accept that the de Vere poems correspond to the quality and style of those attributed to William Shakespeare. By contrast, Gabriel Harvey, a contemporary of the Earl, was absolutely flattering in 1578: "Thou has hast drunk deep draughts not only of the Muses of France and Italy...thine eyes flash fire, thy countenance shakes spears" (from Latin, 'tela vibrat', which can be alternatively translated as "brandishes spears"). Oxfordians venture to say that it is not coincidental that the name Shakespeare can itself be translated into Latin as 'tela vibrat'.

"Shakespeare's Sonnets", with a publication date of 1609 , have been interpreted in numerous ways. Streitz provides novel interpretations, suggesting not only that they include cryptic references to the 17th Earl of Oxford, but also that they were written by that dignitary whose dignity was diminished towards the end of his lifetime.

A poem with metaphorical references to bees is extraordinary. It includes references to henbane, hemlock and other substances, including tobacco. The line "wordes, hopes, witts, and the all the world [is] but smoke" leads to the statement "Twas not tobacco [that] stupifyed the brain". If the verse was indeed written by the Earl of Oxford, as Streitz suggests, perhaps at times he wrote under the influence of a substance more "bewitching" than tobacco: "from those [leaves] no dram of sweete I drayne, their head strong [fury] did my head bewitch"

"Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth" makes very interesting reading, even though one need not accept everything contained in it. There are intriguing facts, such as the Queen's grant of 1,000 pounds per annum to the 17th Earl of Oxford. That was an enormous sum of money in 1586. The obvious question is why? Was it really a gift from a benevolent mother to a playwright son? Streitz suggests that the anomalously large grant was intended to support actors and playwrights to prop up political power at a time when Elizabeth I had to be extremely careful against Catholic opposition at home, and the prospect of a Spanish invasion.

To assess the merits of the book, it is strongly recommended that it be read in its entirety. Even if one is willing to absorb and accept only parts of it, those parts may help to "flesh out" an understanding of relationships between Elizabeth I and the 17th Earl of Oxford, in the context of literary debate.

Reviewed by J.F. Thackeray, Transvaal Museum, Box 413, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

Rating:
Summary: A key to Tudor history and lit?
Review: According to this book, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is not only the author of Shakespeare's plays, but much of the rest of the Tudor canon. He, not Golding, translated Ovid. He wrote Euphues. He wrote The Spanish Tragedy. You name it. But that's just the literary part. It turns out he is not only the son of a 13 year old Princess Elizabeth but also the parent (with his mother, the Virgin Queen) of the Earl of Southampton, the young man of the sonnets.

You might think this is Oxfordianism run amok. You might be right. Moreover, the book suffers from many of the usual defects of the Oxfordian cause. The author is an amateur. His professional credits listed on the dust jacket include service in the 82nd Airborne in Vietnam, an MBA from the University of Chicago, and co-authorship of the musicals "Oh, Johnny" and "Madison Avenue, the subliminal musical". And the book is self-published and suffers from numerous typos and mis-usages, especially in the first part, where credibility is won or lost.

However...the book offers many plausible arguments and some hard data as well as speculation. If you have any interest in the Authorship Question, you should read this book. (If you don't have any interest, you should take an interest; final confirmation and general acknowledgement of Oxford as Shakespeare would illuminate and transform both Tudor history and literature.) Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Henry James and many others long ago pointed out the implausibility of the Will of Stratford story that continues to be taught in school. Searching for the true author, the unfortunately named J. Thomas Looney fitted the glass slipper to de Vere during the First World War. And the professoriat has been trying to ignore it ever since. I suppose they fear looking foolish, and anyway the deconstructionists of the last 40 years have made clear that authorship is of no importance.

One academic, Roger Stritmatter, has recently given attention to the Earl's Geneva Bible in the Folger Library, where marginalia in the Earl's handwriting correlate very strongly with bibilical references in Shakespeare. The greatest need is to find more professors of English renaissance literature and Tudor history willing to break ranks and finally give attention to the mounting evidence in favor of Oxford as the author; they have relied on professorial hauteur long enough.

In the meantime, amateurs should carefully proofread their texts.

Rating:
Summary: England never guessed.
Review: Edward de Vere must certainly be regarded as one of the most fascinating individuals ever to have been visited upon an unsuspecting England. Yet, until now, most writing on the Earl has focused on the authorship controversy, largely bypassing the details of his sometimes inspiring, but always interesting, life. To my knowledge, since the day of his death in the early seventeenth-century, only one competent biography of Edward de Vere has appeared in print: B. M. Ward's The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford published in London by John Murray, Ltd. in 1928.

Now, Paul Streitz's new book, published in November of 2001, qualifies as the second such competent biography, although it is also a good deal more.

Personally, I would have considered naming the book simply Oxford, leaving aside Son of Elizabeth I, as less than a proven (ie: widely-accepted) fact. Yet that second portion of the title is the book's 'unique selling proposition'---or at least the most startling one---so that perhaps I should have come to the same conclusion as Streitz and his publisher, the Oxford Institute Press of Darien, Connecticut, after all.

Because a blood-relationship between Oxford and Elizabeth I is impossible to prove absolutely, and because, even if true, it would have always have been treated as a secret-of-state, it would be unrealistic to expect the sceptered isle to stand itself on its collective head in order to accomodate Streitz's learned and well-documented volume. Since we live in the United States and not the United Kingdom, perhaps we can be forgiven for seeking a little more objectivity.

The seventeenth Earl was born in 1550, the most notable sixteenth-century scion of what was probably the oldest and noblest family in England, not excepting the Tudors or the Stuarts or even the Plantagenets, from the last of which houses Oxford was also descended through the maternal line. Given the young man's noble roots and ancient lineage, and his exceptional literary and other intellectual gifts which were evident from an early age, it is not impossible that a unique relationship simply began when the twenty-eight-year-old Queen and her minister, William Cecil, visited Castle Hedingham, the De Vere family home, in 1560, when Oxford was but ten years old. Their immediate mutual esteem would have developed from that time on as unique human relationships sometimes do.

But Paul Streitz's research and argumentation are superb, and he succeeds in making the central premise of the book seem more likely than not. It may shock the sensibilities of many, but it will certainly be realized by the most perceptive that the placing of a biological child for adoption is neither the deepest nor the darkest secret of human experience. In fact, given the probable alternatives in Elizabeth's case, it may be regarded as a positive mark of her true nobility of spirit.

It is possible that Streitz makes too much of the possible blood-relationship in this case, but it would help to explain many of the anomalies in the present historical record. In short, the book is indispensible reading for anyone willing to got that deeply into such a sensitive matter.

Even if a person disagrees with the title's premise absolutely, the book can be pursued with the same relish and rapt attention for the entire range of insights and significant detail it provides on the Elizabethan and Jacobean ages.

I do expect, not merely to re-read the book, but to revisit its pages often, and I am looking forward to every intellectually-stimulating minute...

Rating:
Summary: you are spot on my lad
Review: I have read many books about Edward, the Queen, etc...and I am convinced he WAS Shakes-speare and that she had him just after she turned 15 getting pregnant at age 14 1/2 (when she was sent to live away in the country and according to her nurse was sick, throwing up constantly the entire summer and fall...hmmm...) and I believe he was born around Feb/Mar of 1549, NOT 1550. That date was made up to prove he couldn't have been the son of Thomas______ who had molested and child-raped Elizabeth when she was only 14 when in fact he was his son. Thomas ____ was executed in 1550 so by changing the date, then he couldn't have been the earl's father...but he WAS. Elizabeth also I think might have given birth to at least 2 more children, Henry Wriothesly obviouly being one of them with Edward de Vere so these two geniuses could incestually carry on their superior genes to future generations. Everything falls into place about Shakes-speare if you know all this and read sonnets/plays. Edward must have been LIVID when he was finally told by the Queen (in his early 20's I believe) that he was her son and the real heir to the throne. But she could ruin that "virgin" (yeah right) status and became the "dark lady" because of it enraging Edward for being reniged this honor. Thomas (Ed's father) own brother was named Edward...was the earl named after his uncle? Also, another book I read said that on the day of the Earl's death, Henry was imprisoned but then released after King James' men confiscated all his papers (Shakes-speare's will?) informing him of his heir status that would have shook the monarchy forever. Good show sweet prince!! Loved the book. I hope others will look at your facts and realized how we all have been duped by the very very cunning/beautiful/enigmatic Queen Elizabeth, a ocne in a lifetime woman. Adieu.

Rating:
Summary: OXFORD
Review: If Hamlet is indeed Shakespeare's most autobiographical work, then the obvious has been staring us in the face for too long: the Queen is Hamlet's mother.

This and other assertions are sure to shock readers and undermine the author's credibility. Mr. Streitz may be out to make a name for himself, if only in notoriety. One thing is for sure: the whole Elizabethan period needs a fresh overhaul, based on the twin assertions, that the commoner from Stratford most certainly did not write the greatest works in this or any language; and that the 17th Earl of Oxford most probably did. Once these premises are accepted as truth, then the whole orthodox history becomes a worthless conceit.

Not all that Mr. Stritz asserts is easy to accept, but enough of it falls within the realm of possibility to make this book an interesting diversion. There certainly was a whole lot going on in the second half of the 16th century that, when looked at through the eyes of the born-again Oxfordian, needs deciphering. This book makes a good start, if only by asking a lot of questions and raising possible answers. Only much further research will vindicate or villify Mr. Streitz.

I removed one star for mechanics: this book screams for a good editor.

Rating:
Summary: Preposterous?
Review: Is this book preposterous? Maybe. Yet those the book concerns lived in preposterous times. Times when a monarch ended an adulterous marriage with the axe, or burned hundreds at the stake for professing a different religion. Or when one could be fined or pilloried for wearing clothes considered above his or her social status.

Men and women then, as now, felt strong hormonal impulses that often led to adulterous relationships. Anne Boleyn and consorts supposedly. Catherine Howard and consorts decidedly. Many women were married in their early or mid teens and some were of the nobility. Prince Arthur Tudor was 15 when he married Catherine of Aragon, 16. Catherine Willoughby was 13 when she married her guardian, 48-year-old Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. They had two sons.

So it's not so difficult to imagine that 14-year-old Elizabeth Tudor's virginity could have been compromised by her amorous 40-year-old "step-father" who had proposed marriage when she was 13. And that she was sent to the country to quietly give birth. And that her child was given over to be raised as the 17th Earl of Oxford. Perhaps it reads like cheap fiction, but it's within the likelihood and lives of the nobility of that day.

At least some Oxfordians have the problem, however, of reconciling this with what is known as the "Tudor Rose" theory, which asserts that the 3rd Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, fair youth of the sonnets, was the son of Elizabeth and Edward de Vere. Season this further with the fact that Southampton was urged by William Cecil, Lord Burghley, to marry Elizabeth Vere, daughter of Edward de Vere and his wife Anne (Cecil) Vere. All of this reminds one of the 1950s tune "I'm My Own Grandpa."

But what Mr. Streitz needs to pay attention to in any future editions is editing. There are some egregious errors (EEs), especially for someone with a master's degree from the University if Chicago, albeit an MBA.

EE-1: Prince Arthur is said to have been married to Catherine of Aragon for two years before he died. If that were the case the Pope would never have allowed Catherine to marry Henry. In fact the marriage of Arthur and Catherine lasted less than five months, during which time it was claimed that Arthur was too feeble to perform. Thus, on the grounds the marriage had not been consummated, the Pope granted dispensation and Catherine was allowed to marry Henry.

EE-2: The sentence, "The ability to emphasize (sic) with another's feelings, emotions, or pain was a quite underveloped quantity in the Elizabethan personality."

EE-3: The phrase, "professors of Greek and Roman." Would not Greek and Latin be better?

EE-4: In referring to an act listed in the Statutes of the Realm, there is the sentence: "It may have been passed in April... or it could have been past (sic) later."

EE-5: And then there's the phrase "heir to the thrown," which is not meant to be a pun.

Hopefully in the next edition, should there be one, Mr. Streitz and editors will take a closer look at the proofs. When dealing with a topic that strains credulity, as this does, great care should be taken not to create unneeded and avoidable distractions that cast greater doubt on the author's credentials.

Rating:
Summary: More evidence in favor.
Review: My first review and recommendation of this book is below. I just wanted to add an interesting experience. I was channel surfing the other day and came across a program of Henry VIII and his six wives, on PBS. Toward the end of that very engrossing show, Thomas Seymour, the dashing paramour of the last of the wives, is shown in very clearly incriminating circumstances with the adolescent Elizabeth. The show even quoted Catherine Parr on her death bed as, in and out of a high fever, she accused Seymour of having relations with her favorite step-daughter. And just as this book asserts, Elizabeth was mysteriously absent during her step-mother's decline and death. This being central to the main assertion of this book, that Oxford was the offspring of Elizabeth and Seymour, I thought it very illuminating to see it presented in the flesh and blood, so to speak, by another source. Readers should not be quick to dismiss this book by its outwardly scandalous assertions. Also, from the show's nutshell characterization of Seymour as a man of dash and verve, one could not help but think that he had just the right ingredients to father the famous author. All in all, very interesting indeed.

Rating:
Summary: More evidence in favor.
Review: My first review and recommendation of this book is below. I just wanted to add an interesting experience. I was channel surfing the other day and came across a program of Henry VIII and his six wives. Toward the end of that very engrossing show, Thomas Seymour, the dashing paramour of the last of the wives, is shown in very clearly incriminating circumstances with the adolescent Elizabeth. The show even quoted Catherine Parr on her death bed as, in and out of a high fever, she accused Seymour of having relations with her favorite step-daughter. This being the central assertion of this book, I thought it very illuminating to see it presented in the flesh and blood, so to speak, by another source. Readers should not dismiss this book by its outwardly scandalous assertions.

Rating:
Summary: A highly compelling, iconoclastic and challenging read
Review: Oxford: Son Of Queen Elizabeth I by Shakespearian enthusiast and scholar Paul Streitz is a daring and controversial account that puts forth a new claim as to the true identity of William Shakespeare. In this persuasively presented account, William Shakespeare is proclaimed to be in fact Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford and the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth I. A gripping historical construction of incest, betrayal, and murder in the royal family as well as a new look at the origin of some of the greatest classics of Western literature, Oxford: Son Of Queen Elizabeth I is a highly compelling, iconoclastic and challenging read for anyone with an interest in English history, but most particularly for the Shakespeare buff.

Rating:
Summary: Long-suppressed, soon to be recognized¿
Review: Ten years ago, my mother (M. Stanley Tucker, Columbia, SC) introduced me to the evidence for deVere's authorship and an "enlightened" interpretation of the plays and sonnets. Since then, I have read and studied all the works by "Shakespeare," as well as all the published research on the authorship issue. There is no doubt in my mind Oxford is the author of the works of "Shakespeare".

It is a travesty the illiterate bumpkin of Avon has been masqueraded to the public as the brilliant author of these literary jewels. The whole affair is a superb example of successful propaganda by the English royal family and the publishing industry.

This book is the most illuminating of all I have read. In his book, Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth, Mr. Paul Streitz builds upon the previous scholars who have been building the case for Oxford. Streitz's understanding and presentation of the complex "symbols" left behind by a frustrated artist deprived of the rightful recognition of his royal title and his unparalleled, creative body of work, greatly furthers the cause of Oxfordians.

The greatest tragedy of the "Stratford" charade is the reader's loss. Without Oxford as author, the richness and poignancy of his supremely autobiographical works are lost.

Even 400+ years later, deVere is due the long-suppressed acknowledgement that he is truly the author of the most marvelous works in the English language. One only has to read the Arts section of the New York Times today to see how many of his plays still dominate our theatres and films. No other author can equal to his gift to our society. He deserves to have his true name on his "ever-living" dramas.