What was Hughes/Shakespeare like as an illegitimate child?
- As an illegitimate child, Hughes/Shakespeare had a “bar sinister” and could never have inherited the crown, but it was “a glorious future for England that remained unrealized,” as Helen Hackett puts it.
Did Elizabeth and Oxford have an illegitimate child?
- In this, he argues that Elizabeth and Oxford had an illegitimate child, who was given the name William Hughes and became an actor under the stage name “William Shakespeare.” He adopted the name because his father, Oxford, was already using it as a pen name for his plays.
Prince Tudor theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Tudor_theory
The alleged parents and sons (inset): Edward de Vere and Queen Elizabeth; Shakespeare and Southampton.
The Prince Tudor theory (also known as Tudor Rose theory) is a variant of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, which asserts that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was the true author of the works published under the name of William Shakespeare. The Prince Tudor variant holds that Oxford and Queen Elizabeth I were lovers and had a child raised as Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. The theory followed earlier arguments that Francis Bacon was the son of the queen. A later version of the theory, known as “Prince Tudor II” states that Oxford was the queen’s son, and, thus the father of his own half-brother.
This hidden history is supposed to explain why Oxford dedicated the narrative poems Venus and Adonis (1593) and The Rape of Lucrece (1594) to Southampton and to explain aspects of the poems’ contents. The content of Shakespeare’s sonnets has also been used to support the theory, as, to a lesser extent, have episodes in the plays.
The Prince Tudor theory has created a division among Oxfordians. Many orthodox Oxfordians regard the theory as an impediment to Oxford’s recognition as Shakespeare, whereas the Prince Tudor theorists maintain that their theory better explains Oxford’s life and the reasons for his writing under a pen name.[1][self-published source]
Background[edit]
A pair of stamp-sized miniatures by Nicholas Hilliard,[2] depicting Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Leicester, claimed by some Baconians to be the parents of Francis Bacon and possibly others.
The theory that the author of Shakespeare’s works was connected to a secret romance and child of the queen dates back to the writings of Orville Ward Owen and Elizabeth Wells Gallup, who believed that Francis Bacon was the true author of the plays. In his book Sir Francis Bacon’s Cipher Story (1893–5), Owen claimed to have discovered a secret history of the Elizabethan era hidden in cipher-form in Bacon/Shakespeare’s works. According to Owen, Bacon revealed that Elizabeth was secretly married to Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, who fathered both Bacon himself and Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, the latter ruthlessly executed by his own mother in 1601.[3] Bacon was the true heir to the throne of England, but had been excluded from his rightful place. This tragic life-story was the secret hidden in the plays.
Elizabeth Gallup developed Owen’s views, arguing that a bi-literal cipher, which she had identified in the First Folio of Shakespeare’s works, revealed concealed messages confirming that Bacon was the queen’s son. This argument was taken up by several other writers, notably C.Y.C. Dawbarn in Uncrowned (1913) and Alfred Dodd The Personal Poems of Francis Bacon (1931).[3][4] In Dodd’s account Bacon was a national redeemer, who, deprived of his ordained public role as monarch, instead performed a spiritual transformation of the nation in private through his work. As he later wrote, “He was born for England, to set the land he loved on new lines, ‘to be a Servant to Posterity'”.[5]
J. Thomas Looney founded Oxfordian theory in his book Shakespeare Identified (1920). Looney did not include any arguments about secret marriages or hidden children. However, his theory soon gained adherents who adapted the earlier Baconian arguments to the new Oxfordian position. Looney expressed his disapproval of the development in a letter from 1933, which states that his followers Percy Allen and Bernard M. Ward were “advancing certain views respecting Oxford and Queen Eliz. which appear to me extravagant & improbable, in no way strengthen Oxford’s Shakespeare claims, and are likely to bring the whole cause into ridicule.”[6][7] Ward’s father had been an early supporter of Looney; Allen was a theatre critic.
Prince Tudor Part I[edit]
Percy Allen[edit]
Medium Hester Dowden, who provided support for both Baconian and Oxfordian advocates of “Prince Tudor”.
Ward did not develop the argument in his biography of Oxford, or in other published works.[8] Allen, however, did. He published his initial views on Oxford and Shakespeare in 1932,[9] but did not develop his full theory until 1934 in his book Anne Cecil, Elizabeth & Oxford. In this he argues that Elizabeth and Oxford had an illegitimate child, who was given the name William Hughes, and who became an actor under the stage-name “William Shakespeare”. He adopted the name because his father, Oxford, was already using it as a pen-name for his plays. Oxford had borrowed the name from a third Shakespeare, the man of that name from Stratford-upon-Avon, who was a law student at the time, but who was never an actor or a writer.[3]
As an illegitimate child, Hughes/Shakespeare had a “bar sinister” and could never have inherited the crown, but was “a glorious future for England that remained unrealised”, as Helen Hackett puts it.[3] Had he been able to claim the crown, the boy would have founded a line of kings that would have excluded the Stuarts, and thus protected England from the disasters brought about by that dynasty.[7] The story of events is contained in the sonnets, which were written by Oxford to his actor son, who is the Fair Youth. The queen is the Dark Lady.[10]
Allen’s theory was not well received by many Oxfordians, including Sigmund Freud, a supporter of Looney, who wrote to Allen to express his disapproval.[7] Oxfordian Louis P. Bénézet did pursue a modified version in 1937, but only accepted that the sonnets were written to an actor son of the Earl’s, not that the boy was a child of the queen.[11] Allen’s theory was later altered to the more acceptable view that the Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, was the hidden child, not Hughes/Shakespeare. Allen later claimed to have contacted the spirits of Shakespeare, Oxford, Bacon and Elizabeth through a medium, Hester Dowden. Apparently, the spirits confirmed this theory, adding that Oxford was the leader of a collaborative effort among poets and scholars to create the works. It was also revealed that Oberon in A Midsummer Night’s Dream was a portrait of Oxford’s and Elizabeth’s brilliant son.[7][12] Alfred Dodd had previously consulted the same medium, who had confirmed Dodd’s theories about Francis Bacon, but the spirit of Bacon now told Allen that Dowden had been innocently misled by another spirit on that occasion.[7][13] These events forced Allen to stand down as president of the Oxfordian organisation the Shakespeare Fellowship.[7]
Allen published his discoveries in 1947 under the title Talks with Elizabethans. He stated that the son of Oxford and Elizabeth was born in 1575. Lady Southampton had also given birth to “an illegitimate child” while her husband was imprisoned. The queen “arranged for her own son to be substituted for Lady Southampton’s baby, and to be brought up as the legitimate third Earl of Southampton”. In this version of events, Shakespeare of Stratford was reinstated as an actor and even as a writer. He helped Oxford and the others to write the plays, generally adding comic material. Indeed, he and Oxford were close friends.
Later writers[edit]
The theory was developed further by Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn in their biography of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, This Star of England (1952). They also adopted the view that Southampton was the child of the queen and Oxford.[14] They cited evidence from Shakespeare’s plays and poetry that Oxford had drawn from his own life experiences to create the characters and events in the works attributed to “William Shakespeare.” After his concealed birth Southampton was raised by parental surrogates. They asserted that the narrative poem Venus and Adonis, dedicated to Southampton, described the circumstances of his conception in the affair between Oxford (Adonis) and the queen (Venus). Southampton was also the “Fair Youth” of the sonnets and that the first 17 sonnets (often called the “procreation sonnets“) were written by Oxford to his natural son, urging him to marry and produce an heir.[15] Like Allen before them, the Ogburns rejected the supposition that the poet and the Fair Youth were homosexual lovers, stressing instead the fatherly tone of the sonnets addressing the Fair Youth.
The Prince Tudor theory was further expanded by Elisabeth Sears’ Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose (2002),[16] Hank Whittemore’s The Monument (2005),[17] and Helen Heightsman Gordon’s The Secret Love Story in Shakespeare’s Sonnets (2008). Sears explores how Elizabeth might have concealed one or more pregnancies, but decided to remain unmarried for political reasons. Whittemore believes the sonnets emphasize the royal blood of Henry Wriothesley, who was convicted of treason for participation in the Essex Rebellion of 1601, but who otherwise might have been named as successor to his mother, Queen Elizabeth I.[18] Gordon emphasizes the love story between Elizabeth Tudor and Edward De Vere, citing an alleged historical reference to their love affair in 1572–73.[19] Gordon believes that the mysterious dedication to the sonnets published in 1609 has encrypted the names of the love child and his parents, their three mottos, and a clue as to the probable date of conception, “Twelfth Night” of 1573.[20][self-published source]
The term “Prince Tudor” was also used by Baconians who continued to follow the ideas of Owen and Gallup. In 1973 Margaret Barsi-Greene published I, Prince Tudor, wrote Shakespeare: an autobiography from his two ciphers in poetry and prose. This purported to be an autobiography written by Bacon hidden within his other writings.[21] In 1992 the playwright Paula Fitzgerald adapted the book for the theatre.[22] In 2006 Virginia M. Fellows, an admirer of Owen who had rediscovered his deciphering machine, published The Shakespeare Code promoting Owen’s views. In the following year, another variation on the theory was created by Robert Nield in Breaking the Shakespeare Codes (2007). He adapted elements of Allen’s “William Hughes” theory and Owen’s model, arguing that anagrams in the sonnets and other works actually point to a “William Hastings”, who was the real Shakespeare and also the illegitimate child of Elizabeth and Leicester.[23]
Prince Tudor Part II[edit]
A variation of the Oxfordian form of the theory, known as Prince Tudor Theory Part II, advances the belief that Oxford was the son of Queen Elizabeth I, born in July 1548 at Cheshunt, Hertfordshire.[24] This theory asserts that Princess Elizabeth, then fourteen years old, had a child by her stepuncle and stepmother’s fourth husband, Thomas Seymour, and that the child of this affair was secretly placed in the home of John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford, and raised as Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I (2001) by Paul Streitz is the primary work advancing Prince Tudor Theory Part II. In addition to making Oxford the queen’s son by Seymour, the book also revives the notion that the “Virgin Queen” had children by the Earl of Leicester. These were Elizabeth Leighton, Francis Bacon, Mary Sidney, Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury, and Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. Finally, she bore Henry Wriothesley, who was the result of an incestuous relationship between Oxford and his mother, the Queen.
This aspect of the Prince Tudor Part II theory is not widely accepted among Oxfordians; most believe that the established date of birth for Oxford (April 12, 1550) is accurate. Thus Elizabeth (born September 7, 1533) would have been 17 years older than Oxford.
Streitz also asserts that Oxford did not die in 1604, but was abducted. The book claims that Oxford was banished to the island Mersea in the English Channel, where he completed Shake-speares Sonnets and The Tempest. He was also the “hidden genius” behind the King James Bible (published in 1611), the unified style of which indicates that it was written by “one clear hand”, though much was retained from earlier translations.[25] He died at the end of 1608. This projected date of death is based on the claim that the first written statement referring to Oxford as deceased was in January 1609, followed by the publication of the sonnets ascribed to the “ever-living” poet. Streitz follows the common Oxfordian argument that “ever-living” is a euphemism for “deceased”.[26]
Further arguments for Prince Tudor II are made in Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom (2010) by Charles Beauclerk, Earl of Burford, a descendant of Edward de Vere. Beauclerk follows Streitz in claiming that Oxford lived on after 1604, but does not state that he was abducted and exiled. He suggests that he went into hiding with the help of William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby.
Dramatisation[edit]
The Prince Tudor II scenario also constitutes the main plot of the feature film Anonymous (2011), written by John Orloff.[27] The film dramatizes events leading to the Essex Rebellion against Queen Elizabeth. Against this background, flashbacks identify earlier episodes in De Vere’s life. His literary genius is revealed in plays written for performance at court, but seeing the power of popular theatre he decides to write for the public stage using a frontman, William Shakespeare. A lover of the queen, de Vere fathers Southampton, who later becomes an ally of Essex. The latter’s “rebellion” is portrayed as an attempt to overthrow Oxford’s longtime enemy the hunchbacked Robert Cecil, not an attack on the Queen. Oxford hopes to support Essex by using his play Richard III to whip up anti-Cecil feeling. He is outmanoeuvred when Cecil discovers his plans. Cecil then tells Oxford that the earl himself is a son of the queen. Essex and Southampton are arrested and condemned. Devastated, Oxford agrees to Elizabeth’s demand that he remain anonymous as part of a bargain for saving their son from execution as a traitor.
In the DVD commentary on the film, Orloff says that he was unhappy with the scene in which Cecil asserts that Oxford is the queen’s son. He had asked the director Roland Emmerich to remove it, but Emmerich insisted on retaining it.[28]
Did the Virgin Queen have a secret love child?
By SARAH CHALMERS, Daily Mail
Last updated at 09:20 14 June 2006
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-390593/Did-Virgin-Queen-secret-love-child.html
A new TV documentary reveals evidence that could shatter one of the enduring myths about the British monarchy – that Elizabeth I had a secret love child with her courtier Robert Dudley:
Unkempt and exhausted, 800 miles from England the shipwrecked young man prepared to meet his interrogators in a Madrid courtroom one June day in 1587. Suspected of spying after his ship ran aground just days earlier in the Bay of Biscay, the unshaven sailor feared for his life.
But it was not the threat of incarceration that troubled him, but the repercussions of the secret he was about to reveal. Asked to identify himself, he replied: “I am the bastard son of Queen Elizabeth of England and her lover Robert Dudley.”
At the time, his confession threatened to undermine the already-tense relationship between Catholic Spain and Protestant England, just a year before the Spanish Armada set sail, intent on conquering her enemy.
Courtiers moved swiftly to dismiss it as fantasy, part of a plot by the Roman Catholic interrogator – Sir Francis Englefield, an English exile in Spain – who recorded the
statement, to overthrow Elizabeth I. And there it might have remained, a footnote in history, were it not for a new investigation by an Oxford-educated historian and author of 70 historical novels.
During the course of his research, Dr Paul Doherty re-examined the original account of the so-called ‘bastard son’ and unearthed what he insists is corroborating evidence.
Could it really be true that the monarch known as The Virgin Queen carried out an illicit affair, bore her lover a child, then abandoned him – rather than face a public scandal?
In November 1558, Elizabeth, last surviving child of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, became England’s sovereign. The nation was on the verge of a religious war between Catholics and Protestants and needed peace and stability.
In the first week of her reign, the unmarried Elizabeth, aged just 25, sought to allay the
fears of her subjects by promising them her devotion, insisting there would be no marriage or children to distract her from duty.
Holding her coronation ring aloft, she declared: “Behold the pledge of this, my wedlock and marriage with my kingdom. And do not upbraid me with miserable lack of children: for every one of you, and as many as are Englishmen, are children and kinsmen to me.”
It was one of history’s most enduring images and set the stage for one of the most talked-about reigns in England. When the Queen died 45 years later, the coronation ring was so embedded in her skin that it had to be filed from her finger.
She knew only too well the dangers of being a woman ruler in a man’s world. Her own mother had been executed on suspicion of adultery, when Elizabeth was just two years old.
Rumours
Nevertheless, there were rumours of affairs even during her lifetime – the majority of which surrounded her intense friendship with Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, a cousin of the Queen’s and a friend from childhood.
Although Dudley married a woman called Amy Robsart – a union of convenience between two wealthy families – he and Elizabeth remained close in adulthood. In 1559 she had his bedchamber moved next to her personal apartments, further igniting rumours of a sexual liaison.
In a famous encounter, reported at the time, the Queen’s childhood governess Katherine Ashley begged her to prove she was still chaste and not involved with Dudley.
So worried were courtiers of an illicit relationship that William Cecil, the Queen’s most trusted adviser, wrote at the time that he feared the pair were planning to marry, and predicted the “ruin of the realm”.
“To say it was a platonic love is to use 21st-Century notions to describe 16th-Century practices,” says Doherty. “In the 16th Century, sex was seen as the expression of love, of chivalrous love and I don’t think Elizabeth was against that. She would have seen it as a logical conclusion.”
Gossipgathered speed a year later on September 8, 1560, when Dudley’s wife Amy died in suspicious circumstances at the couple’s Oxfordshire home, House, near Abingdon. Earlier that day she had sent all the servants out for the day to a local fair and shortly after was found at the bottom of a flight of stairs, her neck broken.
The scandal tarnished Dudley’s reputation and put paid to any likelihood of him marrying the Queen. But by the end of 1561 Elizabeth was confined to bed with a mysterious illness – one that suggests any relationship between the two remained ongoing.
According to witnesses she was suffering from dropsy – now known as oedema – an abnormal swelling of the body due to a build-up of fluid.
The Spanish ambassador reported she had a swelling of the abdomen, and Doherty insists it is not too much of a jump to imagine this might also have been due to a pregnancy. After all, it is known that several ladies-in-waiting at the Queen’s court successfully concealed their own pregnancies at the time.
Testimony
But by far the most compelling evidence is the testimony of the man who claimed to be the product of that pregnancy.
Shortly after his shipwreck in the Bay of Biscay, Arthur Dudley was brought to Madrid to be questioned by Sir Francis Englefield. Sir Francis’s accounts of the conversation were recorded in three letters, known collectively as the Englefield Papers.
The story they contain is an intriguing one of shame, subterfuge and ultimately exposure. According to Arthur Dudley, one of the royal governess Katherine Ashley’s servants – a man called Robert Southern – was summoned to Hampton Court one night in 1561 and asked to obtain a nurse for a newborn infant.
Staff at the palace told him the child was the offspring of a careless employee and must be quickly concealed before news of the birth reached the Queen. On this proviso, Southern was asked to take the boy, christened Arthur, with him to London and raise him as one of his own children.
The only guidance he was given was that the youngster was to receive the education of a gentleman. Arthur learned of the controversy surrounding his birth only in 1583, when Southern, the man he thought of as his father, lay on his deathbed.
The old man confessed the truth to a bewildered Arthur, in front of a witness, a local schoolmaster. Throughout this time, Elizabeth was revered as the Virgin Queen, and maintained a public facade of chastity. Yet there were hints that she was not as pure as she professed.
In 1562 the Queen contracted smallpox and was not expected to survive. Delirious and fearing death, she made a number of unusual demands from her bedchamber. Rallying what remained of her ebbing energy, she implored her advisers to make Robert Dudley Lord Protector with a pension of £20,000 a year, fuelling speculation that he had indeed been her lover.
Even more strangely, she insisted on a £500-a-year stipend for a servant of Dudley’s, a man called John Tamworth. Was he, asks Doherty, being rewarded for his part in the concealment of an illegitimate child?
In fact the Queen did survive her brush with smallpox, but later the same year wrote an astonishing set of prayers which deviated greatly from her usual, rather bland, style. She suddenly composed a very personal set of prayers that seemed to refer to a great sin she had committed.
“For my secret sins cleanse me,” she wrote. “For the sins of others spare your handmaiden. Many sins have been forgiven her because she hath loved too much.”
This, says Doherty may be evidence of a breakdown, prompted by the abandonment of her child. “Elizabeth was writing about herself and it makes you pause and think,” he says.
“She made some harsh decisions during her reign – dispatching fleets and waging wars – but in these prayers she is confessing to a sexual sin and one of the greatest sacrifices of her life: the abandonment of a child by its mother.”
Three other documents unearthed by Doherty seem to bear out his claim. The first is a letter in the British Library dated May 28, 1588, from an English spy – known only as BC – to his bosses in London. In it, BC describes the interrogation of Arthur Dudley and hints that the Spanish authorities took his claim seriously – housing him at the court of King Philip II and giving him a pension.
Not only that but the spy, who previously served in the court of Queen Mary, said that Arthur Dudley bore more than a passing resemblance to the man he claimed was his father. (This is not something Sir Francis Englefield, who was blind and ageing, would have been able to confirm.)
The second piece of corroboration Doherty highlights is the will of Robert Southern, a document that not only confirms Southern’s existence, but also a series of personal details such as where he lived, names of friends, his occupation and so on – details that Dudley relayed later under interrogation.
“If Arthur Dudley was a fake,” says Doherty, “why would he have gone to the trouble of naming a genuine person (Southern) as his guardian, and providing so many personal details?
“Surely, if we have been able to prove that this part of his statement was true, it is not too difficult to imagine that the rest of it was.”
Finally, Doherty travelled to Simancas in Northern Spain, site of the country’s National Archive, where he found a letter Arthur Dudley wrote, begging to be kept safe. The letter, however, makes no demands for money, position or special treatment – proof, says Doherty, of the sincerity of his plea.
For if Arthur Dudley truly was the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth, he had every reason to be afraid. Had it been publicised at the time, the story of his lineage would surely have sparked an international crisis, a civil war and an astonishing revision of history.
Only Robert Dudley and the Queen knew the truth. Dudley died in September 1588, a year after Arthur made his claims. The woman he loved followed him to the grave 25 years later on March 24, 1603.
Her passing marked the end of one of the most controversial reigns in English royal history. Few monarchs have been subject to as much speculation as she was. Buried a virgin and lauded for sacrificing her own happiness for her country – the truth about Elizabeth’s romantic life and possible parenthood will continue to fascinate generations to come.
The Secret Life Of Elizabeth I is on Channel Five at 8pm tonight.
References[edit]
- ^ Helen Gordon, The Secret Love Story in Shakespeare’s Sonnets, second edition. Philadelphia: Xlibris Publishing Co., 2008; Hank Whittemore, The Monument, Meadow Geese Press, Marshfield Hills, MA, 2005; Paul Streitz, Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I, Oxford Institute Press, 2001
- ^ “Stamp-sized Elizabeth I miniatures to fetch £80,000”, Daily Telegraph, 17 November 2009 Retrieved 16 May 2010
- ^ Jump up to:a b c d Helen Hackett, Shakespeare and Elizabeth: the meeting of two myths, Princeton University Press, 2009, pp. 157–60
- ^ Michael Dobson & Nicola J. Watson, England’s Elizabeth: An Afterlife in Fame and Fantasy, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004, p. 136.
- ^ Alfred Dodd, Francis Bacon’s Personal Life Story, London: Rider, 1950, preface.
- ^ Christopher Paul, “A new letter by J. T. Looney brought to light”, Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 8–9. PDF
- ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Shapiro, James (2010), Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, UK edition: Faber and Faber (US edition: Simon & Schuster), pp. 196–210.
- ^ Ward, B.M. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550–1604. London: John Murray, 1928.
- ^ Allen, Percy, The Life Story of Edward De Vere as “William Shakespeare”, London: Cecil Palmer, 1932. The suggestion that the queen had a son by Oxford appears in an appendix. The child is not identified.
- ^ Percy Allen, Anne Cecil, Elizabeth & Oxford: A Study of Relations between these three, with the Duke of Alencon added; based mainly upon internal evidence, drawn from (Chapman’s?) A Lover’s Complaint; Lord Oxford’s (and others) A Hundreth Sundrie Flowers; Spenser’s Faery Queen…, Archer, 1934.
- ^ Samuel Schoenbaum, “Looney and the Oxfordians” in Russ McDonald, Shakespeare: an anthology of criticism and theory, 1945–2000, Wiley-Blackwell, 2004, p. 8.
- ^ Helen Sword, “Modernist Hauntology: James Joyce, Hester Dowden, and Shakespeare’s Ghost”, Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol 41. Issue: 2., 1999, p. 196.
- ^ Dowden was the daughter of Shakespeare scholar Edward Dowden. Dodd had published his discoveries via Dowden in The Immortal Master, London, Rider & Co., 1943. Dowden’s biographer reveals that Allen’s was the final and true revelation. Indeed, from his teenage years Allen had been destined to be the bearer of the ultimate truth: “a plan had been worked out by spirit people interested in his earthly life that he should be the means of finally unravelling the great mystery of Shakespeare’s origin and work.” Edmund Bentley, Far Horizon: A Biography of Hester Dowden: Medium and Psychic Investigator, London: Rider Company, 1951, pp. 147–50. For a more recent discussion of Dowden see Helen Sword, Ghostwriting Modernism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY., 2002.
- ^ They assert that they discovered the truth independently, “we had arrived at the conclusion that Southampton was the son of Oxford and the Queen almost a year before we heard that anyone else had entertained the suspicion.”, This Star of England, p. 297.
- ^ Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn, This Star of England. New York: Coward-McCann, 1952
- ^ Sears, Elisabeth. Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose, Meadow Geese Press, Marshfield Hills, 2002
- ^ Whittemore, Hank. The Monument, Meadow Geese Press, Marshfield Hills MA, 2005
- ^ Whittemore, The Monument
- ^ Neville Williams, Life & Times of Elizabeth I, New York: Abbeyville, 1992, p. 111
- ^ Gordon, Helen H. The Secret Love Story in Shakespeare’s Sonnets, second edition. Philadelphia: Xlibris Publishing Co., 2008. Chapter 2 and Appendix A
- ^ Margaret Barsi-Greene, I, Prince Tudor, wrote Shakespeare: an autobiography from his two ciphers in poetry and prose, Branden Books, 1973
- ^ I, Prince Tudor Wrote Shakespeare, British Film and Video Council, moving image and sound, knowledge and access
- ^ Alberge, Dalya, “Double, double, Shakespeare oil in trouble”, The Times, London, 25 October 2007
- ^ Streitz, Paul “Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I,” 2001
- ^ Streitz, pp. 185–89
- ^ Streitz, Paul “Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I,” 2001, pp. 129–30
- ^ “Anonymous: So Shakespeare Was a Fraud? Really?”, Time, October 26, 2011.
- ^ Roland Emmerich et al, Anonymous DVD, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2012.
