Essex "Rebellion" Part 2 - The Aftermath with Hank Whittemore

Hank Whittemore returns to the Blue Boar Tavern for a Part 2 of the Essex "Rebellion" conversation.
Hank joins regulars Bonner Cutting, Dorothea Dickerman, Alex McNeil, and bartender Jonathan Dixon to discuss the aftermath of the momentous 1601 event.
In this sequel to February’s BBT (watch here: • The Essex Rebellion wi... ), we explore the travesty of justice that was the trial of the Earls of Essex and Southampton, Essex’s fate, Southampton’s imprisonment, and how life-and-death negotiations between brothers-in-law Robert Cecil and Edward de Vere determined who succeeded to the throne of England in the waning years of Queen Elizabeth’s life.
Learn how the enigmatic Sonnets of ‘William Shakespeare’ relate to the trials and outcome.
Visit Hank Whittemore's website at hankwhittemore.com/.
Learn more at shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/.

[@VisionsandRevisions]

Fascinating discussion. I’m not convinced but after watching this I went back and reread many of the sonnets with the presumption that they were a man writing to or for his son who he can’t openly acknowledge. And more specifically Oxford and Southampton. So much becomes clear that used to baffle me.

[@wayneferris9022]

Great insight ladies and gents! Much appreciated!

[@rooruffneck]

While I don't yet go for Hank's theory, I immediately admit it is my favorite one in terms of my desire for it to be true. It has EVERYTHING in it. Hank throws down a challenge by asking how there can be any other possible meaning for 'glory' in sonnet 37. This isn't the spot for such a fun debate, but I'll just say that Hank's framing points to one of the weaknesses I see in his overall reasoning: the fact that Hank can't think of any other reasons the word 'glory' would be used in the sonnets tells me that he is so deeply married to this theory that a debate would be nearly impossible. Look up all of Shakespeare's uses of glory. See if he has many different ways he uses it. Hank often begs the question by reading his priors into every interpretation. Which, of course, makes it seem obvious that 'glory' in 37 can only mean one thing, that it is ABSURD to interpret it any other way. But it isn't easy to have fun and useful debates when people simply can't imagine any other interpretation. But, as I said up top, Hank's theory is by far the most fascinating. And it is internally consistent. That is a minimum necessity for any theory. But it often is taken as evidence in itself. It's not. All this said, this conversation on Essex was outstanding. I love this group of fun and highly intelligent Oxfordians. And I hope the bartender never stops his preshow hummings.

[@FGoodman114]

Bartender here. Thanks!

[@betttrbeth]

Yay, a new episode. 🎉

[@Nope.Unknown]

I wish Hank Whittemores' The Monument book was still available to purchase. Amazon has it used for zillions. 😥 I have the newer one he put out, but I'd love to read the original!

[@duncanmckeown1292]

Very interesting subject! The rebellion probably relates history directly to many aspects of the Shake-speare story more than most events! One fascinating fact I would like to add: Immediately after Oxford's death, Southampton was placed under arrest by the king (or by Cecil?) He was released shortly after, but this seems very puzzling? I can only speculate, but it seems to me that James wanted to secure Southampton's assent to any agreements that Oxford had made with Cecil and himself. There's one to run with! One more reason why the Oxfordian perspective is such an amazing detective story!

[@tomgoff6867]

Oxfordian Percy Allen maintained that, where the documentary record shows gaps (deliberate erasures or deletions?) the literature, poetry or drama, can supply much of the hidden history, albeit cryptically worded--as the Sonnets evidently are a kind of history.

[@VisionsandRevisions]

Completely off topic I have another question. I can’t seem to find an Oxfordian take on David Garrick. Seems to me that the Stratfordian Shakespeare we all think we know was invented by Garrick in 1769 as a marketing campaign. Is there a good source of information on Garrick in Oxfordian circles?

[@JaneHallstrom1]

Would making it the “Essex Rebellion” be part of the deal Oxford struck with R Cecil and King James? All references to it must leave off Southampton’s name?

[@taihastings3097]

I would love to know if there's a l connections between (Measure for Measure) Angelo and Robert Cecil, Isabella and (yes!) Penelope Rich, Claudio and Essex...and Duke Vincentio - a forward nod to James Ist? Allegorically speaking...of course.

[@JaneHallstrom1]

If Southampton was the son of Queen Elizabeth and Oxford and if Venus and Adonis explained the queen’s seduction of Oxford, and if Lucrece explained the rape of Oxford “s wife while he was in Italy and assured Southampton that he was not a half brother of Oxford’s daughter and therefore eligible to marry her, this all makes even more sense than it already does.

[@taihastings3097]

Southhampton marrying a Cecil granddaughter would certifiy his safety. Southampton had Plantagenet blood (Henry III, I believe ) and was of the "True" religion...? Could "Truth" and "Beauty" not relate to religion and royalty in this context too? The Plantagenet blood line is still considered one or the 'purest' of English royal blood lines to this day,...there's still pride in that, in some circles!

[@patricktilton5377]

It's my understanding that a royal bastard CAN become a king IF -- and ONLY if -- he is publicly "acknowledged" by the Queen (his mother) to be her natural son, she presumably having known all along that she had given birth to him and subsequently arranged for him to be raised as a Changeling in another family's household. Thus, if Oxford-as-Shakespeare writes that he (himself) may nevermore "acknowledge" the Fair Youth, does that not suggest that he is lamenting that Wriothesley can never be officially and legally raised to the status of King -- as King Henry IX -- since the Queen never acknowledged him to be her son (whether by Oxford or somebody else), and as Oxford himself only played kingly parts in sport, being at most a 'companion' to a king (an 'Earl' or 'Count' meaning "companion" literally)? The word 'acknowledge' thus probably has more meaning when used by Shakespeare than the word usually has in common parlance; rather, it has a specific LEGAL meaning, along with other linguistic choices the Poet makes, such as the word 'misprision'.

[@HandofOmega]

Wait, what...Shakespeare didn't write *anything*? Based on what evidence? And where else can I learn more about this...?🤨

[@Nope.Unknown]

How exciting! However you best like to absorb information I have a few recommendations on where to begin: 1) Books: "Shakespeare by Another Name" by Mark Anderson, or "Shakespeare was a Woman, and other Heresies" by Elizabeth Winkler 2) Short digital essay: Declaration of Reasonable Doubt 3) Documentary: "Last Will & Testament" (how I started) 4) Podcast: "Don't Quill the Messenger"

[@patricktilton5377]

William Shakspere of Stratford didn't write anything -- save those 6 scrawls on legal documents (the Will). The name "Shakespeare" (the pen-name of Edward de Vere) is to be differentiated from the name "Shakspere" (the guy from Stratford).

[@FGoodman114]

Hi, Jonathan here, from the video. Welcome! Yes, the books Nope.Unknown mentions are good introductions ... and especially the one by Elizabeth Winkler as a very beginning introduction to the authorship issue. My warning would be: Don't just listen to traditional scholars' claims about what doubters supposedly believe, and what they claim doubters' positions are. They throw up a bunch of "strawmen" and tend to ignore what the real arguments are. Go look at what doubters' REAL positions are.

[@taihastings3097]

Raleigh sounds like a narcissist ...what goes round comes around