Regarding Prince Tudor

banner for PT page

· 25 February 2020 ·
[How I deal with my Prince Tudor problem, and some references]
  • • Was Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, my son?
  • • Was Elizabeth Tudor his mother?
  • • Was Elizabeth Tudor my mother?

In a nutshell: I do not have answers. What I have is the decision not to make statements that endorse or refute the Prince Tudor hypotheses based on what I know or think from my life in the past. If this disappoints you, I apologise. Please allow me to explain.

It’s not a reluctance to stick my neck out. I’ve been on the internet since 2015, telling anyone in range that I’m the man who —contrary to the default conception of history— wrote, more than four centuries ago, the greatest body of literature that the English language, possibly the planet, has ever produced. That’s a Starred First in Chutzpah, full stop.

I get PT’s attractions. I also get why it’s untenable. It’s possible that I could make a good case either way if I wanted to argue like a lawyer or preach like a Puritan (O heavens forfend). But even a good case would be of no use. I have no authority now, and nothing short of DNA will ever settle the matter anyway. I’d be happy to provide a sample, but no one except Alex Waugh seems to know where my corpse is.

I have grounds more relative than this. The playing’s the thing wherein I catch the conscience of my thinking. What I write has to make some external sense to me. I don’t invent significant things just because I’d like them to be true, to help me sell a Bill of goods. The method in my madness is to start with something that’s known, or that’s at least plausible or deniable enough for me to commit to, then play with it from there. It’s entirely personal, and it applies to all the topics I write about, not just Prince Tudor. If I can’t make a commitment, find a place to stand, I don’t go there.

Largely because of its contra-historical implications (The Virgin Queen wasn’t? Who’s going to tell Virginia?) and its flirtation with a serious cultural taboo, Prince Tudor is controversial. Contentious. To some, repugnant. Well, so is my identity as Shake-Speare to some others. And repugnance is no bar to veracity.

It’s painful to recuse myself from re-engaging with such existential questions. Who am I? Where did I come from? Unfortunately, what my 16th-century head holds doesn’t matter, because I haven’t found a 21st-century foothold. This in no way disparages anyone who has. To thine own self be true, etc.

Would it be easier to toss the whole business into the bin, clear my character of (some) calumny, have done with it? Of course. Would I rather write about the Procreation Sonnets as the soul-wrenching appeals of an ailing father longing for grandfatherhood, wanting to see his beloved son with a son of his own? God have mercy, yes. Could I do either one? Sure. Am I willing to, in good conscience? No.

Your judgment I condemn not, neither do I mistake your reasons, but I pray you to accept my thankfulness, excuse my doubtfulness, and take in good part my answer answerless.

Elizabeth I to a delegation from Parliament,
24 November 1586

In the interest of accuracy: I was a grandfather prior to my death in 1604, but I had no grandsons. Lizzy’s daughter Anne was born in 1600, and Bridget’s Elizabeth in 1603. Lizzy’s sons were born after my death, as were all of Susan’s children. My young son and heir Henry had his eighth birthday the day before Essex went to the block in 1601. Married but childless, Henry died at the age of thirty-two in 1625. My illegitimate son Edward Vere also died without children, unmarried, in 1629. I had to look that up.

Henry Wriothesley sired daughters in 1598 and 1600, and, following his release from the Tower, sons in 1605 and 1607.

Here are some Prince Tudor reference points, indicated pro or con. The order is meaningless and the list is selective, but it offers a few different looks at the debate. Note that the terms Prince Tudor, Tudor Rose, and Royal Birth are synonymous.

  • (Con) Ms Price provides contemporary documentation for Elizabeth’s activities and audiences during the first half of 1574, and concludes that advanced pregnancy and birth during this period could not have gone unnoticed and unmentioned in the historical record. Discrepancies in works by PT-proponent authors are called out.

See also the letters to the editor subsequently written by Elizabeth Sears and Charlton Ogburn Jr, two of the authors called out in the article above, and Price’s responses to those letters, all published in the next issue of the review, Spring 1997, Vol 5, No 1 [PDF].

  • (Pro) I’m unaware of any PT book closer to the bleeding edge than this one. Consider yourself warned. I’ve mentioned its author before – he is a de Vere descendant, my first cousin eleven times removed. Two reviews of the book are linked below, one generally sympathetic, one not, both in the same issue of Brief Chronicles (Vol 2, 2010), an Authorship studies journal published between 2009 and 2016.

Positive review [PDF] by Michael Delahoyde. He begins with an amusing tale told out of school, and includes a practical description of the Prince Tudor variants. If you’ve made it this far but still want clarification of PT itself, there you go.

Negative review [PDF] by Christopher Paul

  • (Con) A further example of the intensity of the disagreement.
  • (Pro) A shorter, less expensive, easier to pick up, introductory version of the author’s autologically-named The Monument.

VERO NIHIL VERIUS