![]() Most of the “evidence” supporting the Tudor Rose theory is found in the interpretation of lines selected from Shakespeare’s sonnets and plays, and those lines are quoted to excellent effect. Proponents believe that the Tudor Rose theory provides the key to solving many mysteries in Shakespeare’s sonnets and plays, and in particular that the pervasive Rose imagery symbolizes Southampton as the rightful heir to the Tudor throne. This adjunct theory of incest on the part of Cecil exonerates Oxford from promoting an incestuous marriage between Southampton, supposedly his own son, and Elizabeth Vere, supposedly not his own daughter. Some adherents of the Tudor Rose theory also suppose that William Cecil, Lord Burghley, impregnated his own daughter Anne, Oxford’s wife. Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton (1603 “Tower” portrait) ![]() The theory further supposes that the baby was placed in the Southampton household as a substitute for the son known to have been born to the Southamptons the previous October that this “changeling” baby grew up as Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton that Henry was heir to the throne that de Vere identified himself as Edward VII and that Southampton relinquished his claim to the throne in a secret meeting with King James on the night that Oxford died. The theory postulates that Edward de Vere, whom Oxfordians believe wrote the works of Shakespeare, was either secretly betrothed, such betrothal being tantamount to marriage, or indeed actually was married to Queen Elizabeth, and that their union produced a baby in 1574. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1575 “Welbeck” portrait) Over the years, the hypothesis has been discussed in the Shakespeare Fellowship Newsletter and its descendant, the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter. Ward and Percy Allen, independently advanced by Charlton and Dorothy Ogborn in This Star of England (1952), and further promoted by Elisabeth Sears, who published Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose in 1990. The Tudor Rose theory was introduced in the 1930s by Capt. 4 (August 1996) ( PDF available here), and republished here on the SOF website, April 24, 2019, by permission of the author and publisher.) ( Editorial Note: This article was originally published in The Elizabethan Review, vol. Brief Chronicles & Other Past Journals Expand.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |