Hurrah. I mean, one might jokingly connect, or juxtapose Robin Hood with Shakespeare's plays ; Middle ages, kings and queens, tights...... Was the Robin Hood reference just a throw away line? Or did Warner possibly write a version?
Hi Phoebe. I think these videos are brilliant..and just so concise! By the way.. I've noticed how very few people, if any, have ever mentioned how close Hackney is to Stratford. They are literally a stone's throw from each other...!! 😂 Stratford, Hackney, Isle of Dogs, Thames (Avon)...!
Also, if Henry Wriothesley was not a Tudor prince, then why when he committed treason against the crown, was he rewarded with land and money. He lived out the rest of his days in wealth and peace. A strange fate for someone who was guilty of treason. Why is it called the Essex rebellion and not the Southampton rebellion. Also, the Queen travelled to his school to see him graduate, what other young man did she do this for? Every work of Shake-Speare was dedicated to Henry Wriothesley up until the rebellion, then his name is buried. A deal was struck.
Thanks for another intriguing video with Robert. His book - long though it be - is well-researched and has so much information it is an encyclopedia of the English Literary Renaissance. I am with Robert in that I am agnostic about the queen having any affairs, let alone with de Vere. I believe she would not have allowed herself to be pregnant since she was accused of being a royal bastard (RB). During the five years she was under house arrest by her half-sister Mary, there was the real possibility that she would have been assassinated because she had so little power at that time. We envision her as someone who was all-powerful, but that was not always true. Her hold on the throne was precarious for her entire reign. Catholics wanted her dead or at least deposed in favour of a Catholic ruler. Rebels at home and across the sea were constantly plotting against her, not the least of whom was the King of Spain. The Pope excommunicated her and some of her Puritan members of Parliament wanted her to tighten her grip on the church of England and make the kingdom into a stronger police state than it already was. Any RBs would have made things worse. I believe that some of de Vere's earlier poems were possibly that of a courtier who had a dalliance with the queen, but many younger nobles of the time also wrote flattering poems and dedications to her. So, his amorous verse to her may have been either wishful thinking by a young man infatuated with her or merely something other poets were doing at the time; imagining an affair with the most glamorous and most powerful woman in the kingdom. Even Penelope Rich didn't have the same allure the queen had. The fact that she was single made things more enticing. However, Robert presents compelling evidence that she may have had an affair with de Vere that deserves closer scrutiny. Yet, I cannot escape the feeling that much of it is fantasy and young poets wanting to have an affair with her. Think of the millions of teens and young adults today who imagine affairs with the latest musical or movie superstars and you get the general idea. But would she have had any children by him? Would she have risked all by giving birth to an RB after she spent so many years with that hanging over her own head? To me, the logistics of keeping any RBs hidden make them a near-impossibility because it would have taken at least 100 people to have kept any single RBs secret. And who would have monitored them but another 100 people. Then those people would have had to be monitored, and so on. Given she had hand maidens and Maids of Honour who were not as discrete as needed for such a secret - Anne Vavasour comes to mind - would she have allowed herself to become pregnant? She would also have thought ahead to the possibility that the RBs could have eventually been exposed for who they were or when they were of the age of majority and capable of plotting to take the throne by force therefore it is likely that there were no RBs. Both scenarios would have caused chaos in England, causing almost as much strife as the Wars of the Roses. Those are just some of the reasons I believe she never had affairs which produced any RBs. As for the numerous sexual alliances with nobles like de Vere and Dudley, that is another story. I will comment on a line Robert quotes at 6:35. William Cecil was known to have had an extensive network of spies rivalling that of Sir Francis Walsingham the queen's official spymaster, so the reference to Argus could have been directed at him since he was constantly spying on de Vere. He hired spies to accompany de Vere while he traveled the continent which may be the subject of Sonnet 61: "Is it thy spirit [spy] that thou sends't from thee / So farre from home into my deeds to prye / To find out shames and idle hours in me...?". I believe this sonnet was written in the years 1575-76 while he was on the continent. The date of publication of the Gorgeous Gallery fits this idea since the events would have been topical for the courtiers who made up the audience of the collection. Robert, however, reads into the line a preposition. He reads: "... forbid us [to] meet" (6:37) whereas the line reads "forbid us meat" which could easily be an allusion to the time when William Cecil wanted to pass legislation forbidding everyone from eating red meat several times per week. If I recall, in Hamlet Polonius was called a "fish monger" which matches this allusion. That being said, the line could mean both ideas. The problem with getting to the bottom of this is the fact there are no personal letters by de Vere on his personal life which would give us insight into what happened between him and the queen. All we have is innuendo, court gossip and the writing which may or may not be about an actual affair. You and Robert have done an excellent job presenting a case for one with de Vere. This video will require at least three more views before I can gather it all in. One final note. The "turtle" in the poem The Phoenix and the Turtle (22:19) is a turtle dove, not a marine reptile. Many people get this confused.
You are assuming people are always logical in thinking. It's not true - we are emotional beings and lust can easily take over. Once they are laised it would become routine. She likely had a similar relationship with Dudley, ironically. As for keeping things quiet, would you dare go against the monarch in Tudor England? Exactly
@@joecurran2811 I actually incorporate emotion into my argument against the queen having RB's. Having gone through house arrest for half a decade, she would not have wanted any of her blood to have to go through the same turmoil and stress. It would be a mother's instinct to keep her children safe and had she any children out of wedlock neither they nor she would have been safe. As for keeping things quiet, in the day to day life of adoptive parents of the sort we are talking about (the nobility), it would be easy for someone to let something slip out. I estimate that for each RB there would have to be something on the order of 50 people to keep the secret intact and perhaps double that to ensure nobody leaked anything. It does not make practical sense to assume that the RB's identity would be kept for 20 or more years. But you are right: who would dare to risk all by going against the wishes of the supreme monarch of England? Plenty of people tried but look where they ended up: dead or exiled.
Ron I'm so pleased to find you've been reading Oxford's Voices. Until recently so few have seriously gotten into it, perhaps a reflection of a small number of 'orthodox Oxfordians' running interference online and in conferences against it. Naturally, they haven't read it themselves - to their own cost.
Phoebe, I just want to second Bob's comments at the end about your positive energy and your contributions to this topic. I find it a fascinating mystery and I've learned so much from studying it about the history of the times and how people back then thought and acted. When the dam finally breaks, everyone (even the Stratfordians) will have a ball exploring the mystery and I believe your efforts are helping bring that time closer.
This is impressive - well done Bob Prechter and thank you again Phoebe! I agree with Phoebe, Oxford's Voices is so thoroughly researched and really does come up with a massive body of well-referenced evidence. Anyone who dismisses 'Oxford's Voices' without reading it can be dismissed without further ado.
She dallied with many, but left all and sundry in the dust, and her closest advisers/Court no doubt made a din and cry about Oxford. Love this format, Prechter is for me right at the tip of the spear in this field.
So what was Elizabeth doing in the early 1570s? Did “another man” come into her life? Did international matters, eg, the whole marriage to Spain thing, influence her behavior? Or was it psychological? Perhaps, the more she experienced Oxford’s love, the more terrified she became. Men on thrones chopped off women’s heads. Repeatedly. It may have been subconscious, but how could she not fear that? Thanks for this brilliant series.
I think when there was a baby in the picture things got too serious and she had to distance herself to retain her solo reign. I highly recommend watching Hank whittemore’s presentation “shake-speare’s treason” here on RU-vid! It’s life altering work in my opinion
Elizabeth felt her most relaxed & at peace when she was at her home (Nonsuch palace). Where the walls were covered in scenes from Ovid's Tales. What English-man knew those tales better than Edward De Vere? He probably used Ovid's work to seduce the Queen.
One of the 2 or 3 most insightful Oxfordian scholars to have ever graced the scholarly venue since J. T. Looney brilliantly profiled Shakespeare and re-discovered Edward de Vere. Alexander Waugh: R.I.P.
love’s martyr is a perfect example of how important oxford’s voices is to contextualize the bigger picture. to reference part 2, you could say de vere first learned to navigate his role as an influential writer as a propagandist when he was rewarded in his loyalty to elizabeth’s narrative. to play by the rules he created robert chester & his poem to necessitate what he wanted to say as shake-speare!
@@phoebe_devere robert chester is a great example of how we no longer need to take the historical record of elizabethan england at face value. sure you could say he was some mysterious poet who never did anything else & you could wonder how he was able to work w/ shake-speare, jonson, & co. as was purported of his legacy. or you can start to connect the dots.
Phoebe, Dr. Darren Freebury-Jones’ soon to be released “Shakespeare’s Borrowed Feathers' which will speak to the influence of early modern playwrights on Shakespeare - Marlowe, Kyd, Greene may be of interest to you & Robert
Todd here. I have my own BookTube Channel. More interesting videos. I've seen and own the movie that came out in 2011 On Edward De Vere and Shakespeare. It's one of my favorite movies!
William shaksper won't be arrested because nobody would be related the players in the Oxford's circle. Also according to J T Looney, the 3rd earl of Southampton paid William Shaksper one thounsand pound in 1609 as a. ftront man when the sonnets of William Shake-Speare were publishrd
