Orphans, Stepchildren and Step-parents in Tudor and Elizabethan England

The revolving door of King Henry VIII’s wives and mistresses is, of course, the exception, rather than the rule of Tudor family life. But one, if not multiple step-parents, and inherited stepchildren were relatively common in the 16^th century for a variety of reasons. Many children lost one or both parent’s to illness, some of which we can now determine were probably influenza, smallpox, typhus, malaria, dysentery, bubonic plague, scurvy and syphilis.

A composite image of the Six Wives of Henry VIII. Image created by Inor19 on Flickr.



            In 1599 in Ealing (West London), ¼ of all children had lost at least one natural parent, if not both. Step-parents were common, particularly if the surviving spouse was still able to produce more children, or if a male heir was lacking; therefore they would have good reason to marry again. But sometimes people simply remarried again for love late in life, such as the great Elizabethan matriarch Bess of Hardwick.

Portrait of Bess of Hardwick. If you look closely on the left-hand side of the painting, the sitter was once falsely identified as "Maria Regina"-Queen Mary I! It has since been identified as Bess of Hardwick. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons Image public domain.

         Many orphaned noble children benefited from the Court of Wards, which arranged for them to be fostered by other families until they came into their majority. Smaller towns and parishes set up ward programs of a similar structure for orphans who were not of the upper classes. Lord Burghley fostered the young Edward de Vere, later the 17^th Earl of Oxford, until he came into his inheritance. Wisely, Burghley married Oxford to his daughter Anne, to keep the lands and money of his Earldom in the family. Despite the children growing up together, the marriage was a complete disaster.

Detail of a portrait of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, by Marcus Gheeraerts. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons Image public domain.

Sometimes, children were fostered by family members, including when a parent was still alive. This was typical of noble families, stemming from the longstanding tradition of sending children away at the youthful age of six or seven to begin training for knighthood as a page. In England in the 16^th century, if an affluent relative was in a better position to raise a child and give him or her opportunities, it was wise to send the child to that relative. This was certainly the case when Queen Anne Boleyn fostered her nephew, (and possible stepson, if his father truly was King Henry VIII) Henry Carey. Queen Anne’s sister, Mary Boleyn, was still living, but Anne was able to give little Henry the benefits of an education in the royal household, alongside other children of powerful families, dress him in fine clothes, and ensure him a future in the king’s household. Henry Carey would eventually become a close, trusted, and loyal servant of his cousin, (or half-sister? This was contemporary gossip of the time; he was even called “the queen’s brother” on more than one occasion) Queen Elizabeth.

Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon, by Steven van Herwijk. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons Image public domain.

 Whether he was a sibling or not is irrelevant, though; Elizabeth kept all her Carey and many of her less ambitious Howard relatives close to her. She was undoubtedly trying to fill the void of not knowing her mother by becoming close with her maternal family.

Henry Carey, created Baron Hunsdon by Elizabeth I

Step-families were prevalent in 16^th century, as they are now, though for arguably very different reasons. There are many accounts of happily “blended” families in Elizabethan England, but also many horror stories as well. And like today, many children benefited from state/social programs, like the Court of Wards, and were brought up with great success by foster families or well-connected relatives.



Elizabethan Quote of the Day: Elizabeth Reprimands Philip Sidney!

In 1580, Queen Elizabeth I reprimanded Sir Philip Sidney, the celebrated soldier/poet, for answering the Earl of Oxford’s insult with one of his own, thus perpetuating a feud. She said to Sidney of his behavior that... “the gentlemen’s neglect of the institution of nobility taught the peasant to insult upon both”.

Sir Philip Sidney

The Peerage in Elizabethan England

Everyone has heard of at least some of the notable personalities of the Elizabethan era, even if it is only in passing in school or in a movie. But how much do we really know about the institution of nobility in Queen Elizabeth's time?

Well, I have found us the answers and am going to decode the "peerage" for you here!

In 1547 there existed only 48 men within the peerage. In 1553 the number had grown to 56, then 57 in 1558. Then, their numbers decreased again, to 55, by the year of Elizabeth's death.

The power to appoint worthy men to the peerage was reserved for the sovereign, and the survival of a given title was dependent on the nobleman's ability to produce legitimate male issue. Should a member of the nobility die without a legitimate son, like the Earl of Oxford did, the title reverted to the crown and was, for lack of a better word, dormant, until resuscitated by the monarch.

In other unfortunate cases, such as a nobleman being convicted of treason and subsequently executed, the title and the land reverted to the crown, regardless of whether the nobleman had legitimate issue. Part of the tragedy of having a traitor in the family is that not only would your name be dishonored, but you would loose your inheritance.

There were cases when a monarch made exceptions, such as an instance where Elizabeth took mercy on the heirs of a corrupt nobleman and bequeathed land back to them.

During Elizabeth's nearly 45 year reign, the queen only created 18 peerages. All but two of those (Burghley and Compton) were restorations or grants to old, loyal aristocratic families. Upon her ascension, 46% of England's peers were first or second generation in their title. By 1603, only 18% were.

D.M. Palliser, a Reader in Economic History at the University of Birmingham,  proposes that the actions of the Dukes of Somerset and Northumberland in King Edward Tudor's brief reign made both Mary I and Elizabeth I wary of promoting any of their subjects to a dukedom. Being a duke was traditionally one of the most powerful positions in the English kingdom, and usually reserved for brothers of kings.

A detail from a portrait of Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, wearing his chain of office. Somerset was the Lord Protector of England during his nephew King Edward VI's minority. He was eventually executed for high treason. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons. Image public domain.

After the execution of the traitorous Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk in 1572, England would remain without a duke until 1623.

Thomas Howard, the proud 4th Duke of Norfolk, who after many shady grasps at power, was executed for treason. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons. Image public domain.

 As for knighthoods bestowed during Elizabeth's reign, the queen and her lords and generals created 878 knights. Robert Devereux, the tempestuous and willful Earl of Essex, would create the most knights at any one given time during Elizabeth's reign, 81, when he knighted his following during his disastrous term in Ireland. Essex did this without reason, as he had achieved no military victory; he also failed to ask the queens permission, which was becoming more and more typical at this point in their relationship. His knighting of his cronies was a thinly veiled attempt at earning loyalties and building a faction. Elizabeth of course saw through it, and was not pleased.

Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. The stepson of Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, and the queen's  favorite for the second half of her reign, until he betrayed her. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons. Image public domain.

Essex was an exception, as was Norfolk, and for the most part, the members of the Elizabethan peerage were extremely loyal to their queen and hardworking on her behalf. Elizabeth's confidence, charisma and diplomacy commanded respect and instilled fierce commitment, and her people served her well.

Source

Statistics taken from D.M. Palliser's socio-economic study The Age of Elizabeth: England under the later Tudors 1547-1603. 

Who Was the Earl of Oxford?

A detail from a portrait of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, by Marcus Gheeraerts. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons. Image public domain.Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons. Image public domain.

Some of you may be wondering what all the fuss is about, with the upcoming controversial movie Anonymous, opening Oct. 28th worldwide.

In the literary world there has long been controversy over the true authorship of the most important pieces of drama in the Western world. Was William Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon the actual author of the collected works of Shakespeare, or was it perhaps a more believable candidate using a pen name or a decoy, such as Edward de Vere, the 17^th Earl of Oxford?

This brief article is intended to give a brief introduction to the “Authorship Question” of Shakespeare’s works, and provide you with a brief overview of the facts supporting Oxfords candidacy. I hope this article will clarify much of the confusion that will be caused by the upcoming film Anonymous (see my previous post on the films problems/inaccuracies HERE) and I also hope that it will galvanize you to learn more on the Earl of Oxford and why he is the most likely candidate for Shakespeare, in my opinion. Once you discover the facts, of which there are too many to include here in a mini-article, it will be hard for you to believe that William Shakespeare was anything more that a front man for the works, employed by De Vere.

Many people ask me if I believe in any Tudor or Elizabethan conspiracy theories. Let me be clear: I do not subscribe to any of them. The "authorship controversy" would be the only thing that could come remotely close to being categorized by others as a conspiracy theory; however, to me it is more a historical misunderstanding than anything else, not some great, epic cover up in order to protect the crowns secrets, as the new film Anonymous suggests!

I am in good company; The De Vere Society, among other societies of literary, legal, and 16^th century academics are dedicated to proving the Earl of Oxfords authorship. And early 20^th century game changers like Sigmund Freud and Mark Twain, though by no means the first to be suspicious about lowly William Shakespeare being the true author of the plays, did bring great attention to the idea that the Earl of Oxford is a more likely candidate.

The traditionally accepted Shakespeare, or Shaksper, as it is spelled in some written records, (and how I will refer to him hear, for clarity) was born in 1564, attended grammar school, traveled to London in 1580, and died in 1616. Church records detail his marriage and his children’s baptisms, and financial records show him to be a significantly wealthy moneylender. Legal documents from 1612 recorded a deposition in court from Shaksper. However, no evidence exists anywhere of a higher education and no letters to or from this supposed great literary figure have ever been found. If you had received a letter from the great Shaksper, wouldn’t you save his signature? Even more surprisingly, no books or manuscripts were listed in his will. No contemporary referred to him as a writer of any sort, and no one dedicated any works to him, which was a common homage of respect and admiration in 16^th century literary circles. His physician son-in-law referred in his notes to knowing another author of the time, but never once mentioned his own father-in-law as a literary genius!

In 1550, Edward de Vere, later the Earl of Oxford, was being educated by private tutors and subsequently graduated from the two premiere institutions in England, Cambridge and Oxford Universities, all by the tender age of 16! He was a royal ward of Queen Elizabeth I’s most trusted advisor, William Cecil. In 1571 he was married to Cecil’s daughter, Anne, although they did not like one another and Anne would later be under suspicion of infidelity, and the paternity of one of her children questioned. Oxford had an affair with the 'interesting in her own right' Anne Vavasour, and an illegitimate son. 

The joint tomb of Edward de Vere's wife, Anne Cecil, and her mother, Mildred Cooke-Cecil in Westminster Abbey. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons. Image public domain.

 Like so many of Shakespeare’s characters, Oxford had credentials as a favorite in the queen’s court (although this in no way insinuates a romantic relationship, as the new movie suggests!) and he was known to possess the most celebrated talents a nobleman could have: being an accomplished dancer, champion jouster, a participator in court masques, and an unusually sharp dresser! 

The Earl of Oxford was the Lord Great Chamberlain of England; he is depicted here bearing the Sword of State in front of Queen Elizabeth I. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons. Image public domain.

He was a known writer of poetry that pleased the queen and her court, and it was once said that he was a man who “shaketh like a spear”. The atmosphere in which Oxford resided made him knowledgeable in tournaments, armor, and court customs, and he helped to facilitate the planning of court entertainment for the queen. These are things Shakper of Avon could only have guessed at, especially with no library of his own to speak of!



A detail of a portrait of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons. Image public domain.



In 1575 Oxford traveled to the European continent, visiting many places mentioned in Shakespeare’s stories, such as Venice and Verona. William Shaksper, on the other hand, never left England.  There are written records of Oxford receiving a 1000 pound grant each year from the queen beginning in 1586, which was an unusually large sum for any courtier. Interestingly, James Stuart, Elizabeth’s successor, continued Oxfords annuity, again with no explanation. Oxford would die a year after his queen, in 1604, with no will and according to my research, his resting place is still unknown. (However, if anyone has knowledge of where he has been buried, I would be interested to know!)

A portrait of Anne Vavasour, Edward de Vere's mistress and the mother of his only son. She was also the longtime live-in love of Sir Henry Lee, Queen Elizabeth's tournament champion and commissioner of the Ditchley portrait. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons. Image public domain. 

Proponents of the "Earl of Oxford as Shakespeare" theory, also known as Oxfordians, are able to point out many extraordinarily intimate, specific details of his life residing within the volumes of Shakespearean works. While it is true that many of Shakespeare’s plots are “lifted” from earlier stories or legends, and also histories (Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, King Lear) the details are purely the authors creation. In the plays, there are characters and events that replicate the situations surrounding the Earls engagement and wedding, his involvement in the re-enactment of the Gads Hill Robbery, his mother’s hasty remarriage, his cousin Horace, his encounter with pirates, and unusual character names such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. In yet one more coincidence, the book that Hamlet reads, which many scholars believe to be the epic Beowulf, only existed in printed form in one library in England at the time: William Cecil’s, Oxford’s father in-law. 

A portrait of William Cecil, Lord Bughley, in his robes for the Order of the Garter. Picture acquired through Wikimedia Commons. Image public domain.

It would have been political suicide for Oxford not to have used a pen name; most of the Shakespearean plays include direct commentaries, and often criticism, of political figures and policies of the time. A nobleman who was too free with his social views, especially Oxford, who already had attracted controversy for various other reasons, risked being reprimanded, banished from court, or worse. While it was not acceptable for a courtier to write anything for the playhouses, affluent men, Oxford included, could run or support theatre companies. Oxford could easily have crossed paths with Shaksper in his London residency, and paid him to be the front, or the face of his work.  The nature of their proposed relationship and much more on the Earl of Oxford and the authorship controversy is worth looking into. I hope I have sparked your interest to go and learn more!
 

Thoughts, dear readers?

To learn more, we recommend the following books...

Shakespeare by Another Name: A biography of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
by Mark Andersen
First published 2005

One of the best and most popular studies on the Earl of Oxford. Andersen makes his case for Oxford as the true author of the Shakespeare canon.

De Vere as Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon
By William Farina
First published 2005

Each of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets are analyzed through an Oxfordian lens, finding ties to the Earl of Oxford through references, writing style and syntax. A good read for people as interested in the literature as in the history

A Note on the Upcoming Film "Anonymous"

Dear Being Bess Readers,

A little over a year ago, it came to my attention that a new Elizabethan film was in development. In its early stages, the project had no title and only one certain cast member-Rhys Ifans, an incredibly talented but consistently underrated actor. Besides Ifans being involved, what drew me to track the growth of this mysterious project was the plotline: This would be the first film to ever address the authorship controversy of Shakespeare’s plays. As someone who was never a Straffordian, and in recent years has done personal research on the other candidates for authorship of the Shakespeare canon, this project immediately excited me. Furthermore, Ifans would be portraying Edward De Vere, the 17^th Earl of Oxford, the very man that I have come to believe wrote the Shakespeare plays, which William Shaksper of Stratford distributed for him. Please understand, I am not an avid conspiracy theorist. In fact, I detest many of the conspiracies concerning the Tudors that distract from the real history. This is the only one that I subscribe to! I have attended seminars and read books concerning the candidates; I also will thank one of my teachers, Ms. Joy, for long ago teaching her students about De Vere and referring to his works as: Hamlet, by De Vere, etc ! I find no convincing evidence for the other proposed candidates, Marlowe or Bacon; once I discovered the overwhelming evidence supporting Oxford, I was convinced. I am in good company: Twain, Freud and countless others backed De Vere!

            I was joyful that finally, the enormous amount of evidence supporting the brilliant but troubled Oxford as the true author of the Shakepeare works would make it to the big screen, and captivate and educate a mass audience. While this might have been the original intention of the project, month after month the films original message got more and more diluted. I would follow all the incarnations of the plotline online, and while Oxford was to play a role, the project no longer seemed to center around him. I became more and more disappointed.

            Then, finally new life was breathed into the project, giving me renewed hope. The legendary Vanessa Redgrave and the incomparable Joely Richardson, her daughter, were cast to play the young Elizabeth and the elder Elizabeth, in order to span the entirety of the film. As filmmakers noted, both mother and daughter, besides their consummate acting skills, share the same gestures and facial expressions, allowing for a seamless, believable transition between the different periods of Elizabeth’s life. Humorously, Redgrave famously played the proverbial thorn in Elizabeth’s side, Mary Queen of Scots, alongside Glenda Jackson (my favorite Elizabeth!) portraying Good Queen Bess! Because of the Redgrave/Richardson combo, I was once again hopeful for this project, whether or not it centered around Oxford anymore.

            Finally a trailer appeared online! The movie was to be called, provocatively, “Anonymous”. I first viewed it on the fabulous Elizabeth Files site, maintained by Claire Ridgeway. The trailer had me captivated; however, the tone of the film was now very dark: Anonymous was now a literary thriller, and the trailer suggested an intense cover-up, a conspiracy that the crown was participating in. This was confusing to me, given my knowledge of De Vere’s life and writing. Where was Queen Elizabeth’s involvement in De Vere’s authorship of the plays and sonnets coming from? There was something about this movie that wasn’t sitting right with me. I had to know more.

            A quick Google search later, and I was horrified to learn that Anonymous would not just be about De Vere and Elizabeth; the film would be perpetuating on the big screen the “Prince Tudor” myth. For years, there has been a sensationalist theory that Elizabeth had at least one child by Robert Dudley, and maybe even a total of three secret children by him. In an upcoming article, to be posted around the release date of Anonymous, I will share, in great detail, and with ample evidence, why I believe the “Prince Tudor” myth to be pure fabrication, and a disservice to the reputation of Queen Elizabeth.

Not only was Anonymous going to portray the “Prince Tudor” myth onscreen, it also was to further embellish the theory and make it unbearably scandalous. The new film Anonymous will claim that De Vere is Elizabeth’s son by Robert Dudley. Unbeknownst to her, years later in the film. she has a sexual relationship with De Vere (incest!) and conceives yet another child, this time by her own son! Oxfordians the world over are distancing themselves from this film by issuing public statements of disappointment about Oxford and Elizabeth’s portrayal in the film (See below).

My disappointment over this portrayal is immeasurable. Anonymous will be yet another in a long line of films and books to embellish Tudor sand Elizabethan history for public consumption. This baffles me, as real Tudor history is naturally juicy and scandalous, and requires no modern twists to make it more interesting.

People like Michael Hirst, creator and writer of ShowTime’s The Tudors, attribute their rewriting of historical fact as a kind service to the public, making history less “confusing” for viewers. Are we all really that dumb? Filmmakers like Shekhar Kapur, writer/director of both Cate Blanchett Elizabeth films chalks up his gross misrepresentation of the events in Elizabeth’s life to “artistic interpretation”.

As someone who loves all forms of art and expression, I agree that an artist has the right to interpret as they will, but not when they are supposed to be representing an actual historical figure. There is a responsibility to the figure you are using in your art, and when you sell them short, I feel you have dishonored them, while also letting down the public.

Both The Tudors and Kapur’s films have been seen by millions, forever distorting the view of Elizabeth. This is too bad, as Cate plays a wonderful Elizabeth and many of the actors in The Tudors serried are very good. On the literary front, I blame Philippa Gregory for rewriting Tudor women’s history to the point that her books should merely be categorized as fiction, and not historical fiction. I cannot tell you how many people come to my Elizabeth interpretations and ask about events in Ms. Gregory’s books, which they take as gospel. I spend a lot of time correcting the fallacies in her books, and then imparting the real information. I know will have to get ready to do damage control for Anonymous. I take comfort that my dear Being Bess readers read both historical fiction and actual non-fiction on the Tudors, to acquire a balanced, accurate view of the period.

Would I recommend you see Anonymous? Absolutely not. While Ifans and the Redgrave-Richardson duo are strongly tempting me to go to the theaters, I think we all need to send a clear message to Hollywood that we are smarter than they think, and we will not pay for irresponsible representations of history. That being said, I know I will have to see it at some point, in order to be able to give my informed opinion to the museum visitors where I work; I will probably see it when it comes to DVD, but not before that.

That being said, I will not judge anyone for seeing the film; I love all my readers, and I value your opinions. If you do see the film, please share with me what you thought about it by leaving a comment below this article. If you are as outraged as I am, I would like to hear from you as well! Lets create a dialogue on this site about Anonymous, and the trend in Hollywood and the book industry of distorting history almost beyond recognition!

Semper Eadem,

ERITudor

Read the De Vere Society’s official statement on Anonymous.

To see the trailer, visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBmnkk0QW3Q

Official Site for the movie: http://anonymous-movie.com/