Nelson's Introduction
1 - Nelson begins with his
opinion, stated as fact: "he held no office of consequence, nor
performed a notable deed."
So Oxford did nothing of note, yet Nelson still finds enough of note
to fill 442 text pages.
Nelson (hereafter N) then goes on about Oxford's selfishness,
as if he was the only man of that era (or any era) to look out for number
one.
2 - N uses G. Harvey's "a passing singular odd man" as evidence
of Oxford's weirdness. N probably doesn't know that Harvey was alluding
to the boar, which is always singular, and thus, number one, an "odd"
number. Also uses Arundel's slander as evidence. (monsterus adversarye)
3 - N quotes a portion of John Aubrey on Oxford (Aubrey's Lives).
Of course N uses the 7-year fart joke and then says the story is "almost
certainly apocryphal."
Why not just tell the truth and say that Aubrey was making up stories?
3-4 - N says he respects B.M. Ward's biography and Ward as an historian
- yet he rejects Ward's conclusions that Oxford was a genius and VIP.
4-5 - N pays minor tribute to the "amateur admirers" who have
dug up facts and documents about Oxford. I myself have received some
money (not much) from sales of my book. Does that make me a professional
admirer?
5 - N says that neither This Star of England by the senior Ogburns nor
Ogburn Jr.'s The Mysterious William Shakespeare have any material of
note whatsoever !
Chapter 1 - Oxford's Essex
7 - N cites the 1982 ed.
of Buc's Richard the Third as a source for the statement that the 16th
Earl had a horoscope cast for Edward that notes the day and time of
birth.
8 - N cites Norden's antique spellings such as Wyvenhoo and Henningham,
though elsewhere he has accused Oxford of having a tin ear for using
similar antique spellings. Boo hiss.
Chapter 2 - Progenitors
9 - Discussing the parents
of Margery Golding (Oxford's mother) we learn that when Elizabeth Tonge
Hammond Golding (Margery's mother) died, John Golding married Ursula
Marston.
10 - N mentions Arthur Golding and the Metamorphoses without comment.
N includes the fact that Oxford was a distant relation to John Donne
without comment. N includes the fact that Oxford was a descendant of
Edward III and thus a carrier of Royal Blood. Again, without noting
the significance.
10-11 - N describes how previous Earls of Oxford were heroes of British
history and intimately connected with famous Kings. N does not mention
that Shakespeare was also fascinated with the same Kings.
11 - N claims that the identity of the 15th EO's mother is unknown.
This is not true - John, EO 15's mother was Alice, daughter of Walter
Kilrington (also Colbroke). His father was John EO 14.
13 - N. admits that the
Earls of Oxford kept troupes of players as far back as 1492
Chapter 3 - Doubtful Marriage
14 - N calls Edward (EO17)
a "mongrel" because his mother was not noble, unlike his sister
Katherine, a "pure-bred" aristocrat. Yet this fact of having
one foot in each world is what gave Oxford a vast perspective, that
included the "street" savvy found in Shakespeare.
15-16 - N makes a big deal of the Joan Jockey affair concerning the
16th EO and her alleged rape and disfigurement. N suggests EO16 was
a very bad person because of this whole story. (But compared to whom?
The Earl of Leicester? Henry VIII? Elizabeth I? )
17 - A fascinating fact - rich people could pay a dispensation to eat
meat during Lent, due to illness!
15-17 - the multiple connections with Rooke Greene of Little Sampford
are fascinating. I believe, however that all attempts to connect Robert
Greene to this family have gone nowhere. Rooke Greene, imprisoned as
a recusant was perhaps unhappy with the 16th Earl for his religious
flip-flop.
Chapter 4 - Infancy and Childhood
19 - N gives a conjectured
date for EO17's conception: "July 20, 1549 give or take a week"
Given that we know Oxford's date of birth, and how to subtract 9 months,
this is not such an amazing pronouncement.
20 - N notes that April 12, 1550 was a Saturday. April 1550 was indeed
a Saturday.
N also notes that Edward (EO17) was the first (and only) "Edward,"
Earl of Oxford. More singular passing odd. [i.e. Oxford had much in
his upbringing that made him singular] I think it is probably true that
he was named after the young King Edward 6th.
20 - N slanders Oxford's mother Margery as "lusty" without
elaboration.- he just about says that all of the 16th Earl's girlfriends
(after his first marriage) were whores and that Margery was just the
last one! Now, in the real world, Margery was not in the same category
as Earl John's girlfriends. She was from an upstanding and court-connected
Protestant family. She was a good match. Yet N implies Margery was a
whore.
Where I come from, calling a person's mother a whore is cause for justifiable
homicide. But let's just roll with the accusation for a moment.
If, as N claims, it is a
*documented and well-known contemporary fact* that Oxford's mom was
an opportunistic whore, then from a Freudian perspective alone, Oxford
was clearly Shakespeare, who wrote extensively about the mother=whore
problem, climaxing in Hamlet. You couldn't ask for a better upbringing
for Shakespeare!
Here's a very interesting
fact from my own research: In Oxford's letters he never mentions his
own mother, neither generically, nor by name, though he does mention
other people's mothers and does know how to use the word "mother."
He does mention his own father several times ["my father"],
and his grandfather, and the concept of his own fatherhood. But we don't
have Oxford's personal letters.
N also says, rather vigorously,
that Oxford did not participate in "manly" activities. He
is painting Oxford as a pansy throughout. But what exactly is unmanly
about winning National Tournaments? Or having Chapman write about Oxford
like he was an early Shwarzenegger? His eyes flashed fire .... and he
was a mean fencer ... Oxford killed an undercook in a swordfight. What
exactly is unmanly about that? And if he vacillated between melancholy
selfish introspection and mad deadly action then is not Oxford the very
model of Hamlet? [The Chapman play, Revenge of Bussy ..., which contains
the Oxford anecdote, is bizarre indeed. If it had been printed while
Oxford was alive it would have been unprecedented, but the date is 1613
and the conjectured earliest composition date is 1611.]
It appears that most historians
hate Oxford for two reasons: because some say he was Shakespeare, and
because Howard & Arundel (hereafter H&A) accused him
of "buggery." Nelson seems to be following lockstep. Perhaps
now that the US Supreme Court has struck down sodomy laws, people will
be less sympathetic to bashing people based on accusations of homoeroticism.
Note that "homosexuality" is a twentieth century concept.
I like Gore Vidal's heretical explanation: "There is no such thing
as a homosexual, only homosexual acts and behaviors."
Regarding Oxford's sexuality,
another example of his rampant heterosexuality is seen in the 29-year-old
Oxford wooing and winning the 19-year-old Anne Vavasour starting in
1579. This was indeed, a reckless and career-crashing act of manly passion.
How can anyone seriously claim that Oxford was ever "gay?"
He fathered, I think, seven children? - that we know of! How many gay
people does anyone here know who have fathered seven children? The rebuttal,
of course, would be, "he did what he had to do until he finally
bred a healthy legal male heir" (1593). Anyway, the Vavasour affair
puts the lie to all that. And we also have the evidence of the Shakespeare
plays which do indicate an author that loved girls every bit as much
as he loved boys :^)
In Alan Young's book Tudor
and Jacobean Tournaments we get a picture of a very competitive,
highly athletic Oxford. No sissy there.
Maybe we cannot define masculinity
or manliness or virility by: attraction to women, athleticism, violence
and courage, fatherhood, etc., but those were certainly defining attributes
in the 16th century. This closet case is closed.
20 - N mentions at length the decorations in the EO household including
highly decorated "sparvars" or *bed canopies* - one in red
satin powdered with blue boars, and one embroidered with Venus and Cupid!
If Oxford is indeed Shakespeare, this is good documentation on early
influences - these were canopies that he *could* bear.
[Note: I'm not suggesting
that anyone actually carried bed canopies around. My thought was that
if Oxford was Shakespeare, then it becomes useful biographical information
that as a child he was surrounded by bed canopies with Greek gods, Venus
and Cupid, and family symbols like the boar. A "boar canopy"
was the intended joke. I do not believe this has any direct relevance
on the Sonnet - it's just a modern homophone joke.
Other decorations included
mollets (stars) and angels. N doesn't mention it but the so-called Oxford
heraldic "harpy" was described in its time as an eagle with
an angel's face.
These Oxford furnishings
have all vanished. Family heirlooms they were mentioned in the wills
of the 13th and 16th Earls. A commentary on the 13th earl's will mentions
that one of the canopies, based on descriptions of its embroidered symbols,
may have originally come from a "tree of roots" bed of John
of Gaunt. Dr. Pearson speculates that Elizabeth Trentham hid some of
the heirloom furnishings away against Oxford's creditors at John Vere's
house, Kirby Hall, near Castle Hedingham.
22 - EO16's men are described
by Stow as dressed in Tawny and emblazoned with Blue Boars on their
left shoulder. There are also Shakespearean echoes of this.
23 - quote from N's gloss:
"the son [EO17] never developed a passion for the hunt, being more
attracted to literary endeavors as were practiced by his half-uncle
Arthur Golding."
N is completely in the realm of spin and conjecture when he says that
Edward was uninvolved with hunting or "manly sports." And
then he gets to the essence of understanding when he talks of Oxford's
literary influence and passion. Yet he cannot see the obvious ! And
there is a clear diary note from Burghley on August 3, 1574:
"Erle of Oxford at the huntyng of the stagg..."
Chapter 5 - The Education
of Lord Bolbec
23-24 - we learn that there
are multiple pieces of PROOF that Edward de Vere attended Cambridge,
starting in 1558 at only 8 years old. The first proof is a note that
a new lock was installed on young Lord Bolbec's door. This is fascinating,
because N used to claim that Oxford's degrees were honorary, and that
he didn't really go to college. So at an age when the Stratford man
was playing hooky and NOT learning his ABC's, OUR candidate was already
reading at a University level. Nelson then spins this in his uniquely
demented way- there were other young boys at Cambridge too - though
not as young as Edward - therefore it was because he was a well-connected
rich kid - not because he was smart - that he was attending Cambridge
so young.
I am willing to concede
that Oxford's degrees were, in one limited sense, "honorary"
- but the fact that he was in residence for at least some time in Cambridge
colleges, and did, in fact matriculate and get educated in those subsequent
years, shows that the kid actually EARNED his degree.
[A few years ago Farleigh
Dickinson University in New Jersey gave screen actor Bruce Willis an
honorary Ph.D. {Serious!} He had attended one semester, long ago. I
was flabbergasted. And all aspirations of attaining a Ph.D. myself,
the hard old-fashioned, expensive way, vanished instantly. Don't get
me started about honorary degrees.]
24 - There is a record that window glass was replaced in the young Edward's
room - N spins this too: "the young lord's presence spelled trouble
for the college." Ha Ha Ha ! I live in a University town and broken
windows are the LEAST of the problems!
24-25 - N claims that since the big "regime change" (Bloody
Mary's death and QE I's ascension) happened while Oxford was at college,
things were too disrupted for him to have received proper instruction.
Again, I'm laughing out loud (hereafter LOL). All the learning I personally
achieved at college was OUTSIDE of the curriculum. Lots of people have
had this experience.
25 - N admits that in the absence of real education Oxford probably
spent his time participating in school plays.
- N says that Oxford's further education "seems to have been supervised
by Sir Thomas Smith." SEEMS? I know not SEEMS. FACT: Oxford studied
with perhaps the number one genius in England!
- There are also records that Edward had a private Tutor named Thomas
Fowle. Many puns on foul/fowle in Oxford's writing AND Shakespeare.
Sophomoric? Yes, but he was a 9 year old Sophomore !
- N. demeans the brave Thomas Fowle as a Protestant "religious
fanatic of violent temper." And what exactly is wrong with that?
Compare and contrast with the Shaxper family's illiterate papist activities.
26 - N slams EO16 for switching loyalties, when the Protestant regime
was supplanted by Catholic and then switching back when the Protestants
regained power. DUH! What the hell else was he supposed to do? Can we
imagine the depth of paranoia in England in the 1550s? Sure, it's rather
like life today in the USA! Enemies are Everywhere! Egads!
Chapter 6 - Long Live
the Queen
26 - Oxford's mom spends
the year 1559 at Court as a Maid of Honor to the new Queen. What a whore!
27-29 - Documents regarding EO16 show he was a major political player
who wasn't scared to use his power. N admits that Queen E. visited Hedingham
in August 1561 and that young Edward was "doubtless an eager witness."
Does not mention that Oxford's men may have entertained the Queen with
Bale's King John - an early prototype for the Shakespeare history plays.
Chapter 7 - The Earl is Dead
29 - N discusses the EO16
marriage contract for Edward - that Edward should choose between one
of the two Hastings sisters by age 18.
30 - N gives more dates - EO16 died August 3, 1562 and was buried August
31. The long period of time is not unusual. Elizabeth aristocrats used
embalming, and funerals of high-ranking nobles took weeks to organize.
Almost like the Egyptians. The Earl of Southampton was preserved in
honey. [Should help when they finally do the DNA studies in another
500 years, after the fall of the Third British Empire.]
31 - details of the will of EO16 show he was a pretty nice guy and left
a lot of money to the poor in his districts, road repair etc. He was
generous and thoughtful. Interestingly, in the Shakespeare plays, it
is rarely the dad who is the bad guy. Look how Hamlet idolizes Hamlet
Sr.
32 - EO16 leaves gifts for 23 gentleman servants, 44 yeomen, and 22
grooms. I can't fathom why N doesn't print the entire EO16 will - he
gives just little extracts. I recall that many of the names of these
servants turn up later in EO17's life, and some in the Shakespeare plays..
32 - Alan lists the properties that EO16 set aside to pay his debts.
They were thus sequestered for 20 years and Edward had no access to
the income from these properties, nor the right to dispose of them until
1582. This is the first indication that gives the lie to the idea that
Edward squandered his inheritance. It was pre-squandered ... (and post-squandered
too, by Leicester and the Queen!)
33 - N seems surprised by the codicil that indicates that artillery
and armor were inventoried at Hedingham. Of course they had beaucoup
weaponry! Until the Tudor regime, the Earls all had private armies.
It was Tudor policy to destroy the local militias. The Stuarts continued
the process of redefining "gun-control" and "Homeland
security" to such a point that Cromwell and his inane bible-toting
followers were able to take over the country.
33 - N sums up the life of EO16 by saying that he was "inconsequential."
So, I guess keeping one's family and heritage alive against vicious
onslaughts of State Power is of no consequence.
Next
