Was Henry Wriothesley the son of Elizabeth 1st? Part 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- A full transcript of this presentation is available at drive.google.c...
In this video I assess the evidence for Henry Wriothesley being the Queen's son, hinted at by the poem in the Pregnancy Portrait. I have collected information from several sources and present it as clearly as possible. So read it all through and make up your own mind. I will be very interested to receive comments.
I have very much enjoyed binge-watching your glorious presentations. Who needs Netflix, when we have your channel?
This series of videos has been more intriguing than "The DaVinci Code" ever was. A poetic, allegorical painting labeled "unknown" with hidden messages that includes gematria, likely commissioned by the heartbroken & spurned man, who would become Shakespeare. This painting commissioned to place a bit of highly intimate light on dark secrets and as a bit of a dig to the Queen that denied their shared seed to bear his fruitful place on the thrown.
I'm like Oliver Twist over here... "May I have some more please?"
Hello Laurie, Many thanks for your support. It makes the project worthwhile. I will do my best to keep the presentations flowing. kind regards, David
Throne
@@dianeparker5993 👏....👏....👏 😑 Bravo for correcting the spelling on a typo written 6 months ago. Shall I get Queen Spelling Bee a special throne to ease the suffering from all that anal retention? 🤔
@@lauriedavies6183 Oh, how witty! Hope you don't mind, I'm going to steal that retort!!
Just watched both back to back. Absolutely fascinating and as a Brit, it's the first time I have thought it could actually be possible. Thank you so much
Hello, thanks for your kind comments. I have just published a new presentation about a very special painting. You may be interested. Kind regards David
I have thoroughly enjoyed all of these I have spent the last day binging on them. Thank you so much.
Thanks Robin, much appreciated. More to come shortly. Kind regards David
Great detective work! Had me enthralled all the way through.
Extremely intriguing events at the time in question, particularly the very telling 'Letters from Court.' It would be naive of anyone interested in history to believe that Elizabeth was a 'Virgin' Queen. One cannot ignore the fact that Elizabeth would have had an extremely heightened interest in surrounding herself with ultra loyal ladies and courtiers, since she had been in perpetual danger from around the age of three or four until she took the throne; and even then she was beleaguered by those with an interest in Mary Queen of Scots claim. Elizabeth's whole life up to then, and beyond, would have been seeped in her need for secrecy and intrigues. She had need to step cautiously between her Protestant and catholic subjects; In fact, her very life at times depended on her need to prevaricate and mislead; she had mastered the art of the traits by her precarious status, and had the benefit of being the daughter and granddaughter of the Tudor Henry's, both masters of deceit and propaganda.
You have put together some very compelling arguments for the circumstantial evidence of Wriothesley having been her son. It is inconceivable, as you say, to believe that correspondence and state papers/documents of the time were not, in some parts redacted, 'lost' and/or kept private from interested parties and inquiring minds. Elizabeth had many romantic intrigues; she comes across as a woman whom was passionate, and perhaps rather skillful in the art of flirtation; but politically, I believe, she was very much aware that marriage would have been fatal for her reign, and her need to to retain control in all matters of a personal nature, given how little control she had in her formative years. I so much wish that I could read your mind on other aspects from the past; particularity any and all thoughts you might have on Jeanne de Arc, and and certain members the Borgia dynasty.
Hello Lauren. Many thanks for your thoughtful comments, with which I agree. I am not sure if you have seen part 1 on the topic. I am convinced something very important happened towards the end of Elizabeth's reign. So far no-one has challenged my findings so we shall see what turns up. As you may know this all follows from seeing the portrait in Hampton Court Palace. I am sure it has more secrets hidden in it. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 I did watch part 1, David. I have no doubt whatsoever that if more should come to light on this fascinating era of Elizabeth's reign, that you will be there to guide us thro with your interpretation of it; and I for one, look forward to that video with immense anticipation. It's my personal belief that you haven't been challenged on your stance because there can be little doubt that your premise leaves little room for argument on the subject; and is far more plausible than that which history tells us. Thank you for all the effort of research that you have put into these two videos. It is much appreciated. :)
@@laurenpiantino8312 Thanks Lauren, Your support is much appreciated. regards David
And from what I've read on Lord Burghley, as the most powerful man in England whose position and power depended on Elizabeth's reign, he'd have done whatever was necessary to protect and preserve the image and reputation of the Queen...
Very interesting, but have you heard David of the Bisham Boy? Legend says supposedly Elizabeth the First died when she was young, and some boy who bore a resemblence to her was substituted. That's why she never married. At least that is what's been bandied about.
I've also come across the suggestion that Edward de Vere was her child by Thomas Seymour. When you think about it, the age difference makes him a likelier son than lover.
Or both:)
@@zarni000 oh yuck
Great presentations, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to them back to back while doing my knitting. I would suggest providing links in the video description to the channels and videos you've mentioned and you can also add a list of channels to the profile of your UA-cam channel. While it's possible to look through the transcript to find the names you've mentioned, it is still quite a long read, so this would make your friend's research much easier to access. I would also suggest providing information for the Edward De Vere organisation you are a part of incase people want to find out more, which I definitely do. Thank you so much for putting these together!
Hello Esme, Many thanks for your helpful comments. I will look into this. I 'm glad you enjoyed the presentations. Kind regards David
This series of presentations has been entirely delightful and informative. They would make a fabulous movie script regardless of the truth…John Dee and all. The complexity is rewarding.🖤🇨🇦
Your work is absolutely fascinating. Thank you for sharing! I just subscribed.
AWesome as usual and I needed a good distraction while dealing with multiple computer backup fails 😕
It never occurred to me that Lettice's obsession with dressing so much like the queen would be the result of a ruse but it made a lot of sense when I heard you say that. I've had the idea that Essex was the son of Dudley and the Queen and Henry's half brother for a couple of decades ever since I heard that theory . Explained to me Essex's strange entitled behaviour in fact his whole story makes no sense at all. Thank you again this portrait is the gift that keeps on giving!
Hell Alannah, thanks for your support. I am hopeful that others will consider what I have outlined seriously. I am sure more will come to light. Kind regards David
Mm Lettice's obsession with dressing... Maybe something mayonnaise-based?
Very interesting and enjoyable. The thorough research presented was fun to watch develop the conclusions. Looking forward to more.
Hello Adora, Many thanks for your kind comments. I will do my best to keep the presentations coming. Regards David
I enjoy your thought provoking videos and have subscribed. Look forward to more!
Thanks Heather, Much appreciated. Regards David
I don't understand why the descendants have not allowed DNA samples to be taken. Don't they want to know if they are living Tudor heirs?
Hello Heidi. Yes it's odd isn't it? It was the local history group who asked for permission. The implication was that the church authorities were not keen. There may have been the cost and disruption involved, as it was suggested that a donation to the church funds might help.
There is a lot at stake for the Establishment here. If it turned out that Henry really was the son of Elizabeth, large chunks of history would have to be re-written, and many academic careers would be ruined! regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 The truth needs to come out though. ELizabeth was so good at lying and I"m convinced she has more secrets than we know! Thank you David for your work! The truth will set us free!
Er, because they're not insane?
Everyone wants to know why the family will not allow DNA tests. I know why and this is by personal experience. No good will come from knowing. Leave it be and let it go. For to pursue the other will only lead to pain and heartache. Not to mention airing the families dirty laundry for the whole world to gossip about! I don't care how long ago was!
@@davidshakespeare1767 Yes. And there is also the risk that the DNA of the current royals will appear unrelated with DNA 'rescued' from the Tudor monarchs' remains...
I came across your channel by (a very fortuitous) accident. You have presented an interesting and thought provoking conundrum in a wonderfully clear and straightforward manner. Thank you for your hard work.
Hello Claire, Many thanks for your kind comment. Much appreciated. Not sure if you have seen the earlier videos whcih begin with the Pregnancy Portrait. Kind regards David
Great in-depth work. i always loved that painting of her and wondered about the story behind it. I believe Elizabeth did have a child, and it must have been very painful for her to go through the experience of letting him go. The background on Thomas Radcliffe and his position was key for me. Not so far fetched, as there have been even bigger secrets kept throughout history. thank you
Why else would it have been such a secret? Those in court were surely limited in availability to Elizabeth I. Who else could Edward been talking about? There was no one else, so Edward was definitely referring to Queen Elizabeth and their son.
Makes sense
Quality research and presentation. Well done and thank you.
WOW! Your ability to illustrate and debate is superb, you've certainly convinced me with the exceptional detail and timelines and documents it feels like a forensic investigation which reveals overwhelming circumstantial evidence, I'm really impressed by your ability to narrate this so realistically, it's quite funny that Elizabeth was horrified that her boy grew up to be an arrogant lout, that's hysterical to me, and if it was not true then it makes Henry's meteoric rise in status at the age of 19 seem very nefarious or at least a bit odd, thank you David I really enjoyed this.
Fascinating video! I love a good mystery, especially a historical one, and this is a magnificent "who-done-it"! De Vere comes out of this as a very wronged lover indeed...but the Shake-Spear sonnets make more sense than ever.
Hello Duncan, I'm glad you enjoyed it. The issue of the Sonnets may not involve the Queen. Have look at my presentations on 'Who were the parents of Henry de Vere' and Update on the same. regards David
Thank you for presenting such fascinating insight into the complex and compelling possibility of an heir. The Queen was, after all, human.
Hello Ada, Many thanks for your comment. Much appreciated. regards David
Brilliantly explored, extending profound appreciation for all your work. I was riveted by your delivery and watched all episodes. Thank you for sharing with us.
Hello there, many thanks for your support. It makes the hard work worthwhile. Look out for my next one on the Rainbow Portrait. Kind regards David
Fascinating and sober observations. I looked up on wikipedia Henry W.'s life and i find interesting all of the times which Queen Elizabeth interfered or seemingly stopped Henry from going into battle or once a duel, as well as imprisoning him for his marriage ( and she was pregnant). If Henry was her issue and the Tudor prince these actions on her part make a lot of sense. Also Henry W's character- an interest in the fight and a quick temper, sensuality, grandiosity and sexual appetite are not inconsistent with being the possible grandson of Henry VIII!
Good point on family traits
Or Liz 1st , cuz home girl had lots of "play" dates ** on those giant plush pillows in her chambers under candle lite. Plus she was a "cougar"....she like them young and "strong" 🍆 *accept the humor* 😁
Or the son of Edward De Vere
I absolutely loved this! I have always thought that Elizabeth 1st would have left behind a direct bearer of her genes [even though genes were not known about then] because she was the Queen! Your argument presented here confirms my motherly intuition. Yes - I think she bore a son. Incidentally - the pregnancy picture - look at the position of her left arm! As a mother of four I confidently assert that in pregnancy, that way of holding one's arm balances the weight of the pregnant belly. Just my opinion:)
the back discomfort in even the early months changes your posture
I had leaned in this direction too, before viewing your fine work
Hello there, Many thanks for your kind comment. It makes the work worthwhile. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 David we are ever so grateful for your treatment of this issue, including you final conclusions.
People are only starting to question it now, but I never thought Elizabeth I was a bodily virgin. She was a political virgin (via marriage), but not a personal one. It would be highly doubtful considering her love for men and her exposure to some of the most handsome, best-dressed, charming men around her. I've read many books, she had her moments with these men and could've been quite physical. I personally believe she had her first child from Thomas Seymour way back in the late 1540's, and this particular danger to her reputation made her very cautious. HOWEVER, she could've easily had one or two more children. It was easy to arrange these things into secrecy with payment and legally binding promises on pain of death if broken.
My, you really have spun this out! You'll have to continue on faith, as there is little or no evidence for your beliefs. And such privacy was a virtually non existent concept!
The original Southampton baby probably died at childbirth, allowing for The Perfect opportunity for a switch.
It would certainly fit wouldn't it. Charlotte Stopes the Biographer of Henry Wriothesley, was unable to find any record of the baptism/birth of him, or the birth of another son. The mortality rate was high even in the gentry. Regards David
Heidi Johnes: If the child died, it would not have been during child birth, as the 2nd Earl refers in a letter to Sir William More that his wife gave birth that morning to "a goodly boy, God bless him."
@@davidshakespeare1767 If the child died, it would not have been during child birth, as the 2nd Earl refers in a letter to Sir William More that his wife gave birth that morning to "a goodly boy, God bless him."
You had me glued to my screen. Very interesting. Thank you very much. I did enjoy it .
Wonderful!! I have enjoyed watching all of these videos today - I'm now in the camp of believing that it is a possibility. Well done. I look forward to more.
Thank you so much. My aim is try to present some pretty complex arguments in an approachable way so that people can think it over themselves. I am very glad you are enjoying the journey. Kind regards David
omg- I've binge watched all of your videos!! Who would've thought? Incredible sleuthing! I think you might be on to something! Thank you!
I hugely appreciate and enjoyed all the detail and clear research that has gone into this presentation. The one thing that I'm aware is pedantic but was hard to ignore was that you pronounced knollys incorrectly, said aloud it's knowles. Thank you for going into such depth on an intriguing possibility, if only we could be a time travelling fly on the wall.
The Poem in the cartouche is so evocative. This commentary too is a masterpiece imo.
What are the odds? But very beautiful.
Also makes me remember our Diana died while in flight. Yet she is our symbol of beauty and desire to love and be known. Elizabeth and Diana.
How beautiful a setiment. Well said
Very interesting..and frustrating, at the same time!!! Question: has the Queen's DNA ever been harvested from her body (I doubt it); and/or which of her descendants would give a sample of their DNA? Thank you..
HI there, No one has taken DNA from Elizabeth 1st. Usually in Tudor times the internal organs were removed from the dead monarch, but Elizabeth expressly forbade any formal examination of her body. It would be possible to rule out Henry Wriothesley if the were a match with the Second Earl of Southampton. So far permission has been declined. regards
David
@@davidshakespeare1767 what would you give for a 24 hour unobserved, root-around in all the old tombs. Access to all that DNA would answer lots of questions!! Thank you!! Oh, as an American, do I make the assumption that the permission would come from the reigning monarch?
@@davidshakespeare1767 why has permission been declined?! It would put to rest so many rumors. My god.
@@davidshakespeare1767 The same goes for the bodies of the princes in the tower that were found under some stairs in the Tower of London. Charles II had them buried in Westminister Abbey. Again permission was denied. In their case,what does it matter?
I thought DNA could be harvested from teeth and bone marrow.
I would assume the documentary has a lot of arguments in favor of that claim. For this and other reasons I believe that a lot of historical enigmas will be solved if even just one member of the current UK royal family makes a DNA test and the results are withheld for any future questions. Yes, I know that Elizabeth I did not have any official descendants, but her aunt Margaret had, one of them being Elizabeth II. The big questions is of course if they would take the risk to find out if the royal lineage was at some point... broken.
Interesting and provocative, your video conjured up different images in my mind of how Elizabeth may have behaved towards the men courting her and what life was like for those closest to her. Thanks for this puzzle. I think your arguments point to a strong possibility Elizabeth was not a virgin and could have had at least one child.
This was superb ! Thank you !
As a descendant of these families it is fascinating to see the ciphers being broken and the truth revealed. But there is a broader picture that seems to be lost obsessing over minutae.
Some of it can be better understood once you understand the biological facts pertaining to these families having RH negative blood.
Another factor is the farming out of royal bloodlines in to blissful anonymity for protection and viability of procreation.
Often surnames where modified along with coats of arm's to maintain an accurate record of the
Bloodline. Testing for Rh negative status back then was possible by taking a proven sample and mixing it with the claimant's fresh blood. If the blood was not also negative the admixture quickly agulates as the Rh negative antibodies attack the unrecognised blood. This test is till used today.
The expression Roseworthy means of the blood.
The rose is related to the apple tree.
Wriothesley is a phonetic pun on Roseworthy.
The Bowes blood line has many surname variants under which guise it continues to this day.
All these Bow names derive from the French word Beau, being beauty and beauty being truth.
Simple really.
From a purely practical view the anonymous lines enjoy the freedom's no courtier could ever hope to know.
Very interesting but the portrait/painting if indeed it is Elizabeth is definitely a pregnant woman and certainly how she is standing and her left hand supporting her side.
He did a video on that portrait in extreme detail. It is a really great video I can highly recommend it.
You don't think that if you're having a secret love-child ... you might perhaps NOT commission a bump-and-all painting?
Thank you for all of your research David. I love seeing posts like yours that give the Stratfordians a good ol' kick in the pants for their years of covering up their massive lie !
This is an enticing video series. Despite not being a PT theorist, I find it almost convincing. One important series of events mitigates against the PT theory as presented here. In the early 1590s, Southampton was proposed as a husband to Elizabeth Vere, Edward's eldest daughter. Would that not have been seen as immoral and incestuous had Wriothesley been her half brother?
I interpret the sonnets as poems presented to Southampton post-suit to sire a child by Lady Penelope Rich, not as from a father to his son. Alternately, the procreation sonnets (1 to 17) could have been presented to Southampton during the courtship of Elizabeth in anticipation that the marriage would go through.
I also interpret sonnet 33 (1:08:33) in an entirely different light. In the 1580s or earlier (I forget which year it was) de Vere's first wife Anne gave birth to a son who was only declared Viscount Bulbec - he was never given a name - and died while an infant. That would explain the line about holding a son but one hour: de Vere held him for as long as he lived. (Nina Green mentions this on page 228 in her biography of de Vere which is on her website oxfordshakespeare.com.)
Hello Ron, Thanks very much for your interest. Elizabeth de Vere was born while Edward was in Europe. The reports are somewhat confused as dates may have been changed. The circumstantial evidence was that Edward was "convinced" that she was not his and this was the principal reason for his estrangement from his wife for 5 years after his return. Eventually they were reconciled. I think a lot of dodgy marriages when on among the gentry!
I know that Alexander Waugh champions a relationship between Penelope Rich and Southampton, and I am tempted by this. I plan to look at in detail in a future presentation.
Yes I know about Nina Green's sonnet 33 interpretation. The way I look at it is that we have a raft of circumstantial evidence for many things that may or may not have taken place. No one piece can be proof, otherwise it would be direct evidence. I hope I am playing my part in rehearsing these arguments which may not otherwise be accessible to a wider audience.
kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 HI David. I recall that Burghley made a note in his journal that someone told him de Vere did not believe Elizabeth was his because she was born in July 1576 and it was not yet one year since he and Anne had 'relations' in Hampton Court in October 1575, which is exactly nine months previous to her birth date. I have a feeling he got his biology wrong and figured that it would take a year for kids to be born and that is why he was convinced she was not his. The dates on the calendar prove him wrong. That note is as much first-hand documentation we can get why de Vere thought Anne had an affair. In 1581 he was reconciled with her, yet still had his own affair with Anne Vavasour and was put in the Tower for that scandal. I have the feeling his affair happened after they had gotten back together.
The Region Cloud is unexplained , in that case.
@@pbredder Sonnet 13 has the same phrase, so it must have been important. The problem is trying to figure out what that meant in the context of his life and writing. Who, or what is the "Region Cloud"? Could that be the queen since "region" may be a pun on regina? What are we to make of "Cloud"? The enigma lingers in any case.
Fine job!
Thanks Patrick, support much appreciated. regards David
Where did my comment go? May 9, 1583: The newly born son of Edward and Anne Cecil was buried. Memorialized in Sonnet 33. "...he was but one hour mine."
Hello Tom Thanks for your comment. I got it by email. The issue of Edward de Vere's first daughter Elizabeth is an interesting one. She was born when he was abroad in Italy. There has been considerable debate about his paternity. He has been quoted as saying that if any child were born when he was away it was not his. His wife Ann was reported as being distressed when she was found to be pregnant and the date of the birth has been questioned. When de Vere returned from Europe he was estranged from his wife for 5 years ostensibly over the birth of his daughter. The wildest conspiracy theory suggests that as trips to Europe were so dangerous there would be a real risk of de Vere no returning, so it was in Cecil's interest to have a successor in place. The truth is unknown of course, but it seems wise to keep an open mind. kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 Again, my comment has been deleted. I took some time to compose it and find the apparent censorship quite disturbing. I did not think to make a copy, not believing that someone espousing an open mind would remove a sincerely written commentary on a topic of common interest. It did me well to further consider this topic which I took from Sonnet 33 to Twelfth Night, but who would know?
@@tomditto3972 Hello again Tom, I am not sure what is going on here. I enclose you comment below.
In answer to you questions. I have approached the topic solely as an extension of my research into the painting. I am offering up the findings as a possible interpretation of what the painting and the poem is telling us. I am not saying its true, merely that it is possible.
With regard to the paternity of Elizabeth de Vere. The account of Edward's return from Europe and its aftermath is well documented. A good example is in Mark Anderson's Book "Shakespeare by another Name" from page 117. It is interesting that Henry Wriothesley refused to marry Elizabeth even after intense pressure and a fine of £4000. Many thanks for your interest. Kind regards David
David Shakespeare We share the open mindedness to the extent that we consider Edward de Vere as the genius behind the Shakespearean canon. This becomes apparent when one compares his life to the themes and plot lines in the plays, and the innuendo of the Sonnets. I cited Sonnet 33 in the comment deleted from this UA-cam. In particular I referenced: ua-cam.com/video/duL5zJwnRX4/v-deo.html This is beautifully read and illustrated. My point was that Anne Cecil and Edward de Vere's son lived "but for an hour." The connection is so obvious and poignant that it is, for me, "a smoking gun" as we are want to say in American jargon. You have suggested that the Sonnet refers to a speculative paternity for Henry Wriostheley by way of Elizabeth R. Here we depart company, because in my mind you are negating solid evidence for a far less evident speculation. Why the unnecessary departure? You refer to hearsay commentary without giving any print media references to the supporting citations which is so unlike your thorough and compelling scholarship around the Pregnancy Portrait. Please enlighten us as to your sources for what de Vere said, Anne's concerns, and Burghley's worries. I will refer you to de Vere's letter to Burghley from Paris where he shows no surprise, much less indignation, upon hearing of Anne's pregnancy, which one would expect from the emotionally explosive Earl if he had no reason to suspect he was not the sire of the pending child. As for the plays, one cannot but see in Twelfth Night how the wicked suspicion of the paternity of a Princess pivots into the loss a Queen, the exile of the child, and ultimately the guilt ridden grief of the suspicious father. As in so many of the works of the Canon, this appears to reflect upon what de Vere experienced.
@@davidshakespeare1767 Thank you for restoring one of my deleted comments. (There was a second instance of deletion not restored.) The paragraph spacing is lost, limiting legibility, and the editing feature is not available, so I cannot correct the misspelling of "wont" which I wrote incorrectly as "want." My grammar will go forever wanting for want of an editorial prerogative covering my own comment.
While Anderson does recount the abusive treatment of Anne, he does not subscribe to the Prince Tudor theory. What he does emphasize is how remorseful Oxford was for his jealousy giving us Othello and Winter's Tale as expiation. Anderson has had quite enough of this debate, feeling that it divides us as we wage a larger battle simply to deliver recognition to de Vere as Shakespeare. I have been cautioned by my betters to let it all ride and will not trouble you further other than to reiterate that I personally find your reading of Sonnet 33 most compelling, notwithstanding that I come away from it with my interpretation rather than yours.
@@tomditto3972 Hello again Tom, Thanks for your latest comments. Great to debate. I view the whole thing as a big jigsaw puzzle, the pieces of which come from different sources and as yet do not fit easily together. Hopefully we will live long enough to see the puzzle complete. kind regards David
I just noticed that contrary to the colourful fashions of his contemporaries, Wroithsely is frequently depoicted in rather plain black and white. With red, these are Elizabeth's colours. When you add an element of red (as in the background of the portrait shown) to portraits of Wriothsely you add a literal "Lancastrian background"
hi..great info thanks......do you think these people are related in anyway to baldwin de redvers or sir richard worsley of the isle of wight? thanks, all very interesting
Hello there, don't know the answer to that. I believe that Henry Wriothesley was made Captain of the Isle of Wight in 1603 when James 1 gained the throne. So he had connections there. regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 Thankyou David, it would be interesting to pick your brains.....im sure i will be in touch.I will watch all your videos..The link to this island is important.To be captain of this island holds the highest place,at any point in time.Have you heard of the shakepaere fountain?thanks again Mark.......
Ever more questions than answers....QE1 and Edward de Vere are said (by Hank Whittemore, for example) to have encouraged the young Henry Wriothesely to enter into a marriage contract with de Vere's daughter Elizabeth, which he declined to do. At first blush, this action on the part of the Queen and her former consort could be construed as an incitement to incest, should HW and Elizabeth de Vere have shared a father. They would have been closer than first cousins.
Common sense alone would have argued against such a marriage proposal as that between a half-brother and sister, something the devout Oxford would surely not have sanctioned, much less encouraged.
Whilst said situation would seem to undermine the hypothesis concerning Wriothseley's regal parentage, the apparent dilemma is resolved once one factor's in the likelihood that Edward de Vere was not, in fact, the father of his daughter Elizabeth, whom he only acknowledged following a five-year separation and after reaching an agreement with his father-in-law, Lord Burghley.
The bottom line, as they say, is that Edward de Vere was perfectly at liberty to agitate for the union between a son in whom he was genetically invested, and his own daughter, who was, in reality, adopted.
You got it all wrong. Nice try though.
Southampton was famed for being a love interest of Francis Bacon (which is why he was favored at court). Francis Bacon used the pseudonym "Shakespeare" to write many literary works (because it was not considered a suitable pursuit at the time). Francis was referred to by his close friends as the "spear-shaker", an allusion to "Pallas Athena" (goddess of wisdom who is waving a spear), and the shakespeare sonnets were dedicated from Bacon to Southampton. It is Francis Bacon who was always known to be Elizabeth's son, not Southampton. She and Leicester had a second son (Robert Devereux) and was placed under the care of her cousin Lattice Knollys. Before his death Devereux even left his real name etched on the wall of his cell (Which can still be seen today) "Robart Tidder", which is the welsh pronunciation of "Tudor", which is of welsh origin.
The pregnancy portrait is allegorical with a great deal of symbolism. The seal is unsurprisingly linked to Shakespeare, since Bacon ordered said portrait, and is the protagonist of the portrait, but not in the way you would expect. Bacon is the weeping stag in the portrait. See how Elizabeth is crowning the stag with a wreath of flowers (his rightful crown) and how the stag weeps. In the portrait she is expecting Dereverux, and you can see in the embroidery motif of her robes how there are two ripe opened figs (I don't think much explanation is needed there)... meaning she has given birth twice. There are only two figs in the motif of the entire robe/dress.
The myth of Actaeon is mentioned in shakespeare plays, and is also present in the portrait. Actaeon was a hunter transformed into a stag by the goddess Diana (I think) for having seen her bathing in the forest.. Actaeon runs and his killed by the hounds that were originally with him for his hunt. Bacon is the weeping stag in the portrait, and Elizabeth is the one responsible for his imprisonment as such, condemning him to keep his royal origin secret for the sake of her ambitions and credibility. Much more can be said, but as Bacon so generously and compassionately said in his masterwork "Hamlet(Bacon)", "Wretched queen, adieu!, oh I could tell you... but let it be."
With so many eyes on Elizabeth it would put her reign in peril if she gave birth out of wedlock. I just don’t see it as being possible for her to give birth without causing a scandal.
Hello Patti, Thanks for your comment. I can understand your viewpoint. It is fascinating how a male ruler for example Henry V111 could have illegitimate children and it made no difference to his rule. A female ruler would be judged very differently. Tudor England was a police state and what I have tried to do is offer up ways in which a pregnancy could have taken place. On an international level any pre-exisiting offspring would be sidelined so the prize of the English throne would still be great.
Yet one could also understand how any old illness could be manufactured to keep the Queen out of the public eye for a determinate period of time. The more one becomes acquainted with ER1's "right hand man", William Cecil, Lord Burghley, it seems easier to accept that through him, anything might have been possible...
@@AAwildeone Yes indeed it was. He went from a jobbing lawyer to the richest man in the realm. You don't do that without trampling over a lot of people's lives. Regards David
Was she not "treated for appendicitis" once? Could have been a cover for birth or miscarriage.
Very interesting and I like that arguments pro and con are presented.
I think the portrait of the 18th Earl of Oxford has many similarities to the portrait of the 16th Earl, and features carry over from grandparents to grandchildren very strongly.
Suggestion - please proofread the graphic slides for typos in dates. Many dates for the 1500s show as 1600s? Also, are we sure John Rollett died in 1915? His picture and book look much newer than that. Could it be 2015? Cannot find him on google yet.
Hello Enheduanna, Many thanks for your comments. I will have look at the typos. John Rollett died in 2015 again my error for which I apologise. If you search for him under his name and Shakespeare, his articles will come up, together with chapters from a book. kind regards David
Henry Wriothsley’s behavior seems very similar to Henry VIII, which would make sense if he was Elizabeth’s son.
I find this very intriguing!! There's a bit of issue (at about 27:56) though. As a genealogist, I know how easy it is to accidentally happen though.
The death date is _before_ the birth date, for Charles IX of France ??
It should say 1560 - *1574* ... not _'1474'_ .
Need to watch both parts again, a lot to assimilate. Off the cuff, the geometric/Greek letter content seems pretty far fetched. Do you need to go that far to establish the likelihood of DeVere’s parentage? Any reasonable, informed, unbiased person has to grant that he is Shakespeare. I’d like to learn about stuff such as who was where when, integrating historical facts like how his trips to the continent might have played into their relationship…his marriage…his outrage at his own loss of good reputation. How would that have been such a blow if he himself was carrying on with the queen… or was that simply explained by the double standard for men and women? So intriguing. Please make more more more videos!
Hi David , I’m totally convinced that Elizabeth had at least one child , however I feel inclined not to believe that the pregnant portrait is she.
A pregnancy for her would have been totally 💯 kept quiet . She would never have posed for a portrait however much she was in love with the man .
A lock of hair , a piece of memorial jewellery but never a portrait. Sorry , my opinion only .
And thank you I find all your work fascinating.
Hi Lesley, Thanks for your comment. A lot of people have made this point. The painting is an allegory, carried out in around 1600. Any pregnancy of Elizabeth would have been around 1573. She never posed for such a painting.
My simple way of looking at it is that the painting is a criticism of Elizabeth by the man she silenced (de Vere) by not recognising Henry Wriothesley as her heir. He is making her express her sorrow for this. regards David
You don't breach the topic that a bastard isn't able to ascend the throne
is it conjecture or fact that the 18th earl of Oxford was Henry's son ? I thought he was the son of Edward De Vere and his young second wife ??? Wasn't his second wife a friend of his daughters ?
Hello Lenore, Thanks for your encouragement. The issue of the paternity of the 18th Earl is the subject of much debate at present. My learned friend Alexander Waugh is firmly convinced that Edward de Vere persuaded Henry Wriothesley to have a baby with Penelope Rich, sister of Robert Devereux. She being his previous mistress and the Dark lady of the Sonnets, thus providing him with an heir. This leads on to a completely different interpretation of the Sonnets. While intriguing I am not so sure about this. I am thinking about it at the moment and will put together a presentation shortly. So thanks for reminding me. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 i think Waugh sometimes really goes off on tangents De Vere was certainly young enough to sure his own son what I want to see is a portrait of De Vere s son with Ann Vavasar he was supposed to have been a brilliant scholar but he died young as a soldier In Denmark and I believe firmly that Ann Vavasar was the dark lady and not Penelope Rich🖤
@@lenorejones8339 Hello again Lenore. Oh for a talk with Anne Vavasour. She lived until 90 and saw it all. As far as I am aware there are no paintings of Edward Vere son of Edward de Vere. I am not sure about Anne as the Dark Lady. The sequence of events does not fit too well. She gave birth to De Vere's son in 1581, and this was followed by open warfare between de Vere's men and her relatives. The Sonnets were thought to have been written in the early 1590's, by which time she was living with Sir Henry Lee, by whom she had another son. Their relationship was accepted by the Queen who visited them at Ditchley, Lee's country house near Woodstock in 1592. Anne and Henry Lee were together until he died in 1610. My understanding is that young Henry Vere had no contact with his father, but was taken under the wing of his uncle Horatio Vere the soldier. I think it unlikely therefore that Anne would have been involved with de Vere at the time the Sonnets were written. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 The reason I'm convinced Ann Vavasour was was the dark lady of the sonnets is because if you read about her life its clear that she was a narcissist {much like Meghan Markle} Incapable of being faithful and yes I know Edward De Vere fought in the streets with her male relatives over the affair{Just like Romeo and Juliet} The sonnets could have been written then and not in the 90's . They could have been published later. His son with Anne was a scholar who inherited his father's genius for translation. But because he was poor he was in the military in Denmark. The De Vere's were originally from Denmark. {Hence the setting for Hamlet} Anyway he was poor and had to support himself that way and he died young possibly in battle.. I read that there is in fact one portrait of him somewhere in Denmark. I'm DYING to see it can you research it ??
@@lenorejones8339 Hello Lenore. I will see if I can trace the painting. regards David
Others have disputed the parentage of Edward de Vere
Could Elizabeth be the mother of Edward
If that is so then where does that leave Margery Golding
Looking at the eye position and nose the shape could match
But the Golding face shape is so like De Vere
Southampton's mother Mary looks too much like him I would love the DNA of all the people concerned Perhaps then a great mystery would be solved
Hello June, Yes this is possible. I did look into it some time ago. After Thomas Seymour was executed, Elizabeth was the subject of intense investigation and questioning and the conclusion was that she did not bear a child. Unfortunately there is not anywhere near as much evidence to consider as with Henry Wriothesley. Kind regards David
June Hawker: not sure what you mean by "the Golding face shape is so like de Vere" as there's no extant portrait of Margery Golding or any of the Goldings for that matter. However, Margery Golding-de Vere did literally refer to herself in a letter to William Cecil as Edward's "natural mother." That carried one meaning and one meaning only: his birth mother. There wouldn't have been much point in lying to Cecil since, if anyone knew the truth of the matter, it would have been him.
Sorry but there is no 'overwhelming circumstantial evidence' de Vere was behind the 'pen-name'. 'Evidence' on their side of the authorship argument boils down to Oxfordian's own-designated, subjective criteria for being so, and collecting these self-declared pieces of evidence until many have accumulated. Shakespeare didn't go to Italy, but that doesn't mean he didn't get descriptive info from some source who did. The plays in Venice never even mention the Canal, one of the most profound aspects of the city. Why might that be?
What about Ben Johnson, and his dedication in the First Folio? What about his personal notes found after his death? What about the many personal testimonials by other authors of that time which can be logically linked to the Stratford man?
One more dagger in the heart of deVere is of course the computer writing stylistic analysis, which shows the author of the plays to be clearly 'separate in style' from all of the other authors of that time.
Hello Peter, Many thanks for your comments. I am afraid we will have to differ on this one. Best always to keep an open mind. Ten years ago I would have agreed with you, but I am now utterly convinced that Edward DeVere wrote under the pen Name William Shakespeare . regards David
Excellent, Thankyou !
I do think this was Elizabeth's son but, like you suggested, Elizabeth saw that he wouldn't be a good ruler.
It's also possible that Henry W was the grandchild of Henry 8. Princes and Kings ofte had relationships with married women. Given that the married woman had provided heirs to her husband's family, another child could be provided for by gifts from the royal father and additional benefits would be given to the family. It would be important for the royal family to keep track of these children since the family would want to avoid cousin marriages, provide for their own out of sympathy and make sure that no other person would marry them to manipulate the emotions of the total family.
Fascinating
Have seen several of your videos on, your theories regarding 'was she or wasn't she.....pregnant'? I found your work and your videos interesting on all fronts!!
However, here's where I would differ and diferr my opinion: 1) Although, some in the comments section contend there's NO WAY she could have been pregnant w/o B N found out; I would ostensively argue that she would have had the $$, means, and the reason, not to mention 'the good sense' to pay for people's silence. Seeing how lovingly she was referred to as, "Good Queen Bess" I can totally envision those around her respecting the sanctity of her privacy. 2) 39:20 While I do concede you do a marvelous analysis if the portrait I, was so thoroughly waiting for you to say something about his HANDS. To me, if ever there was a feature that looks / resembles Elizabeth the most it's in the hands. 3) If I had to stretch the boundaries of my own thinking on my first point I would argue that another reason for either the voluntary or (supposed) involuntary silence of her lady-maid's / 'Ladies of the Bedchamber' might have been that no one wanted to test their luck at stirring up the ire of King Henry's daughter might have had something to think about.
Would love to read your thoughts on some of this. Once again thanks for such wonderful content. I look forward to viewing more in the future.
Hi David, have thoroughly enjoyed parts and and two on Henry Wriothesley ( son of Elizabeth 1. )
I thought that the weakest past of your evidence was the supposed copy of the "Pregnant Portrait' which you photo-shopped into a rectangular view. The image was very bad and not very helpful at all. Also, I could not see that it was very helpful at all, in fact it was rather a red-herring. Perhaps I have missed the point of the of a copy. Are there no grounds for the the image being the original?
Secondly, you never imagined or mentioned that one method of birth control must have been abortion. I think that there must have been herbs and draughts that were known to 'wise old women' and that many fetuses were aborted in Tudor times. Clearly, with some many 'wards' to take care of the Royal court
produced many babies out of wedlock but I feel sure that the knowledge of herbs or mechanical means were known and practised, but not always successfully. This I think, strengthens the argument, for a deliberate pregnancy ( even with high risk of death in childbirth.) However, there was always the present danger that the Queen could have died in childbirth, particulary if she was
what the medical profession call ( in Latin) and"old mother'.
Hello Jenny, thanks for you comments. No the Tring Park House painting was quite separate, probably copied from the original following the Commonwealth. Many alterations have been made to the original and unfortunately the custodians of the Royal Collection are unwilling to enter into any dialogue about it. The important difference between the two paintings is the building shown in the Tring Park one which I suspect is the banqueting House at Nonsuch, which at some point has been overpainted. Although the original painting was referred to as being Elizabeth 1 for over 300 years, the current view of the custodians is to shut down any discussion about it. The problem for them is that the subject is clearly pregnant even though shown allegorically. I am not hopeful of getting to the truth about all this, my aim is stimulate thought and discussion. Kind regards David
Its posssible it was to late when figured out. Some periods are very spiradic or some come pregnant or not
Are there any writers among the descendants of Henry de Vere? Just wondering if supreme wordsmithery is heritable.
Is it possible the de Vere was asserting parentage if Henry, but the woman in the portrait is Mary Wriothesley, Countess of Southampton. She looks so similar.
Hello Kailin, Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately the only painting I can find of Mary Browne/Wriothesley was done when she was only 13 years old so it is really hard to make any comparisons. regards David
No.
Didn't John Rollett die in 2015 (caption at 1:13:14)
Hi Lawrence, Yes he did, my error which I will correct shortly. Flipping between centuries gets tricky after a while. Kind regards David
Who objected to the DNA tests? (I'd think it great fun to dig up my relatives and do that sort of thing to them)...perhaps whoever's in charge now is ok with the idea? It's a lovely painting, I shall try to listen to the sonnets while visiting it.
Another talk mentioned Spanish and French ambassadors writing home that the Queen was looking pregnant in January 1561 just before the birth of Francis Bacon ? And he's registered as being born in Elizabeths residence and the house next door? Perhaps we can do a DNA test on him? With Bacon's interest in science, surely it's the type of experiment he'd love to participate in?
Outstanding!!! ♥️🙏♥️
Thanks Debbie, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Regards David
Somewhat 'off topic', your careful scrutiny of artwork prompts me to ask whether anyone has given thought to this question: To whom did 'Shakespeare' bequeath his portrait - the one he must have sat for before his retirement to Stratford in order for the engraver, Martin Droeshout, to copy it later? It's a loaded question of course, but no less valid for that.
Hello Martin, thanks for your question. Funnily enough I have just published 2 videos entitled "The first Folio Frontispiece in Context and Perspective". which I think answers your question. I think it likely that the Chandos portrait was a painting of Wm Shakespeare of Stratford. The First Folio implied that the he was the poet, but as you will see from my analysis the truth is revealed in Ben Jonson's poem Kind regards David.
@@davidshakespeare1767 Thank you, David. Your new videos having now appeared in my 'side bar', I shall adjourn to them shortly. Meanwhile, you might care to glance at the 'Venice Portrait', which I became aware of only recently. I am waiting upon a reply from its custodians (the RSC) in the hope of disambiguating the inscription it apparently bears.
Best wishes, Martin R.
Very interesting- thank you
According to J T Looney, 3rd Earl of Southampton gave William Shaksper one thousand pound in 1609 before publishing the sonnets. apparently to use him as a front man.
There is no evidence that anyone ever gave William Shakspere anything, no connection has ever been found between Wriothesley and Shakspere or Shake-speare, and Looney never made such a statement.
Meres mentions Shakespeare and the Sonnets in 1598, so they were known to exist and to be written by Shakespeare long before 1609 anyway.
"Katherine Medicii... She was the husband of one French king and the mother of three." ????? lol I dare say David meant "wife".
Why does anyone still care after 400 years?
Assume all the contemporary writings, poetry, and codes left in paintings are correctly interpreted, consider this-Elizabeth, knowing contemporary belief on the matter to be garbage, let the rumors persist for her own manipulative purposes.
She was known to be a master manipulator, particularly when it came to her marriage, sovereignty, and succession, and maybe she found the rumor that the Tudor line was already assured convenient to her purposes.
What is needed is evidence that *Elizabeth* thought she had a child. What others thought about the matter is immaterial. For example, many people around the world think the earth is flat, with writings and drawings of same. Doesn’t mean they’re correct.
Hi there , thanks for your comment. You are right of course we will never know for sure unless someone opens up Henry Wriothesley's lead lined coffin. It is however worthwhile drawing together facts from original sources many of which are not easily accessible to the occasional reader. My aim being to stimulate thought. Kind regards David
They should take the dna.The people have a right to know!,,
It is unthinkable that E the1 could have hidden a pregnancy . She would have had no privacy to do so. People talk .
Cant DNA analysis give an answer?
Maybe its worth mentioning that in 1591 De Vere married Elizabeth Trentham. Who, I read somewhere was at the time one of "Queen Elizabeth’s Maids of Honour". I guess this meant that by 1591 Elizabeth was okay with DeVere knowing her secrets.
DeVere's lover ten years earlier, Anne Vavasour (the resulting pregnancy from which had pissed off the monarch so much) was also one of these ladies.
Does this make the Prince Tudor theory: Elizabeth ... 10 years .. one of her ladies ... ten years ... another one of her ladies? not counting his wife, who had been foisted on him, for some of that? I hope this is not too crass.
I clicked on this video to learn about the correct pronunciation for the name Wriothesley and ive concluded that there isn't a single correct way because i havent heard your pronunciation before.
But is it Risely or Rosely
Highly unlikely she could have been pregnant at age 42 back then.
Not likely- Elizabeth never had the privacy necessary
How many known half siblings, legitimate or not did Elizabeth have? How many children then claimed Henry V111 as grandparent? I see this as just as likely.
Impossibly intriguing....! Utterly arresting!
Brilliant work well explained. I have now attempted video creation and appreciate the work you put into this. I will have to watch again to extract more from your research. Your work on De Vere's fascination with numbers (and 153) is my focus right now. I have two videos that I would love you to comment on. You comment on 'overwhelming circumstantial evidence' and I believe the sonnets alone contain just that. ua-cam.com/video/tFPB5RaAJ3s/v-deo.html
Here I have used graphics to show what Hank Whittemore has described for us (and I believe other authors have also made observations regarding a pyramid structure).
My hope is that observations of patterns within the sonnets pyramid may add new understanding. For example my comments on S18 and S33 having a symmetrical relationship.
As you will see, I draw attention to the Bath Sonnets and ask why the poet has given them prime position, at the top of the pyramid.
As far as I can recall, I have read that Wriothesley was born 6 October 1573 having been conceived on 12 night 1573. The queens trip to Bath seems to have been in 1574. De Vere was her favourite at this time but if they were lovers, why is 1574 the important date at the top of the pyramid? Just a thought, does it relate to the end of their intimacy? Not long afterwards he went on his continental trip.
Hoping to hear your views David.
One other thought / question: I notice you pronounce Henry's name as "Rosalie" -- if I am hearing you right? This spelling W R I O S T H E S L E Y, in no way, shape or form aligns with what I think that pronunciation should be. Teach me something if you will. I am also an American teacher. Thanks.
Congratulations on a coherent plot. However, I doubt a substitution was necessary. The second Earl of Southampton was probably not the sharpest tool in the shed - definitely not if he thought his wife either conceived by him while he was still held in the Tower of London, or with him immediately upon his release, following which there remained only a six month interval before the third earl's birth on 6 October. With that modest caveat taken into account, I have to say, the argument represents an entirely credible synthesis of widely distributed data.
Many thanks Martin, your support makes all the hard work worthwhile. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 You are most welcome David. Very much later in life than I might have expected I have been enthralled by your work, that of Alexander Waugh, and Hank Whittemore, whose interpretation of the sonnets and their historical significance tallies absolutely with your analysis of the 'Pregnancy Portrait'. It leads me to wonder if the author's description of a hypothetical infant being 'but one hour mine' could explain the effusive nature of his later references to the adult third earl, whose whereabouts/identity may have been kept from him for years?
Mind boggling...
The British dislike it.
When you point out how William Cecil kept confidences and had everything to lose if he did not, you are correct
ua-cam.com/video/duL5zJwnRX4/v-deo.html
However, he attempted to betroth Edward de Vere's daughter to Henry Wriothesley. If he knew that Edward de Vere was also Wriothesley's father, the match would have been incestuous in the first degree, a brother marrying a sister. William Cecil was a lot of bad things, but like most overbearing authoritarians, he was not about to mess up his own nest - just everyone else's. The only possible explanation for the proposal of marriage is that Cecil did not know about this Tudor Prince, which considering his track record on keeping tabs seems unlikely.
Edward de Vere did not believe Elizabeth was his child and it does seem fishy Anne Cecil became pregnant just as de Vere left the country to travel in Europe - a dangerous undertaking in that era. Cecil - fearing he might die abroad would have plenty of motivators for seeing his very compliant daughter produced an heir before de Vere left England.
@@enheduannapax7988 We need to find a detergent soap manufacturer to sponsor this for daytime TV. Your argument is well thought out as a plot line. I believe Oxford expiated his jealousy by writing Othello, holding Anne harmless and blaming himself for believing the worse of her. It might well be that he did try to impregnate her for the very reason you hypothesize, that is, he might have attempted to fulfill his patrimonial obligation to sire an heir before departure. In many a narrative involving soldiers sent to the front, a similar impulse is common enough. De Vere left on his trip to France and Italy on February 7, 1575 then wrote to his father-in-law on March 17 that he was pleased to learn Anne was pregnant. He added that now that he had an incipient heir, he would continue on his travels. While abroad De Vere was fed a line by the companion, Rowland Yorke, who was later memorialized as Iago for his villainy. If you accept my hypothesis that he tried to sire an heir, are you further hypothesizing that fearing a failure, Burghley sent compliant Anne off to the "sperm bank"? I've heard this expressed by theorists following a plot line where Cecil did the job himself which seems as false to my ear as Burghley promoting an incestuous marriage for the subsequent granddaughter. And while it is true that she was Daddy's pet, Anne Vere also was in love with her husband. Just how far would this Desdemona go to placate her father?
I would have thought whe she was very young at Queen Catherines new maried home. Not when she was very old .
Why do you pronounce Southampton’s name as you do? Most scholars pronounce it “Rizley”. Also James Looney is pronounced “Loney” by most scholars.
Hello Ann, Nobody really knows how Wriothesley was pronounced. Both "Rosely" and "Rizley" are used by scholars. Some people think that the common use of the "Rose" metaphor in The Sonnets is a pun on the pronunciation of the Fair Youth's name. To my ear "Rosely" is easier on the ear. Not sure about Looney. A quick scan of Google seems to indicate that "Looney" is the commonest pronunciation among those with this surname. Maybe he chose to use Loney to avoid the obvious derogatory meaning. Kind regards David.
Thanks for your reply. I think the Loney thing is used mostly by people I’ve listened to from America. And I prefer it because the Stratfordians say Looney with such relish. How Ridley or Rosslyn can be made from Wriothesly is difficult to understand but that’s English for you. Regards.
Are we to believe that a barely literate commoner who never saw a royal court, could write so beautifully and knowingly of all that transpires at couet?
No you should just believe what Ben Johnson told you in the First Folio, as well as in his private notes, neither of which were 'coded' like conspiracy theorists suggest.
@@peterrichards931 I'm not saying anything is coded. Nor is it really a conspiracy. It would be as if a housing project drop out accurately wrote plays about the inner workings and power plays of The White House, The Hamptonite social circles and the history both happy and tragic of America's greatest monies families. It beggars reason.
@@robertalpy9422 I'm not certain of your perspective, but how do you explain Ben Johnson's blatant references to Shakespeare of Stratford/Avon in the First Folio if you don't believe Shakespeare wrote the plays? So many authors of the time mention Shakespeare as the author, and their statements can be logically linked to Stratford.
They need dig woman up
Ooh ooh ... wait, I think I know this one er ....... no.
He might have been the nephew
Thank you.
As I don't think that the woman described as "in the pregancy portrait" looks at all like Elizabeth (and is more likely the woman slave gifted to Elizabeth, Aura Sultana) it is going to be an uphill job to persuade me she had a son.
Why would anyone paint a portrait of a slave
@@anniemaymcneely2013 Slaves were often painted because of their exotic appearance or to indicate the power and taste of a slave 'owner'. According to Hakluyt, Elizabeth made a god daughter of this girl on her conversion to Christianity and accepted advice from her on Middle Eastern fashion. Elizabeth received lavish gifts of silk clothing from her the middle east and exported bell metal to the middle east. A Tartar girl captured and enslaved like Aura Soltana would have had a back story of loss and adversity that might well account for the poem. Elizabeth 1 has good relations with some Middle Eastern rulers with whom she corresponded. However it is unthinkable to me that Elizabeth would have had herself painted in Mohamedan dress. Elizabeth's "brand" was virginity and global power. She was always painted with a very thin waist as an indication of virginity and surrounded with symbols of power. The woman in this portrait doesn't resemble Elizabeth facially, has long dark hair and is shown in eastern dress in a natural setting, comforting a 'sobbing hart' (worth looking up W. Shakespeare on that theme).
Hello Katharine, thanks for your comment.My aim is put out information to a wide audience to stimulate thought and discussion. The face that you see in the picture is that of Eternal Youth, also employed in the Rainbow Portrait. The painting is an allegory, full of hidden messages and designed by some one who could no longer speak his mind. In my view Edward de Vere former Lover of the queen who wrote under the pen name William Shakespeare. regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 Thanks for your reply David. My background is History of Art and Athropology. I've read your internet conyent but not the full pdf. What is your explanation for the Anatolian/Middle Eastern costume in this painting and how do you tie that in to the narrative you put forward?
Thank you : )
Yes absolutely yes