Was Henry Wriothesley the son of Elizabeth 1st? Part 1

A copy of this presentation as pdf is available at drive.google.com/file/d/1Z-0i...
Rather surprisingly there are clues to the relationship between Elizabeth 1st and Henry Wriothesley 3rd Earl of Southampton, hidden in the text and the cartouche of the Pregnancy Portrait. Take a fascinating trip with me into the minds of Tudor cryptographers. The result may surprise you. Part 2 coming shortly looks at whether or not what is revealed could possibly have taken place.

[@ariellehart9312]

Wonderful and fascinating! Thank you! My father was a well-known Shakespearean scholar. He taught during the 1960s, 1970s and, 1980s. I think that he would have been proud of the prodigious scholarship. You have reignighted my interest in Elizabethan poetry. Take care. Thank you!

[@lauriedavies6183]

This series of videos has held me absolutely captivated. You have done a fantastic job. The narration, editing, analysis, & graphics are phenomenal. I'm going to have to watch the entire series again. This is exquisitely fascinating. And to think I stumbled onto this series. I don't even know what possessed me to click on the first video, but I know I don't want the series to end. They should put you in charge of finding Atlantis.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Laurie, Thanks so much for your kind comments. There is more to come! Kind regards David

[@brunsonmckinley5327]

Your exegesis is entertaining and ingenious. Some of us who are prepared to credit the Oxfordian thesis would nevertheless welcome a broader explanation of why the secrecy was essential and how it was maintained during De Vere's lifetime and more importantly, as many well known personalities were privy to the secret, why immediate light was not shed upon the authorship question at De Vere's death. The years 1603 to 1623 are crucial.

[@baronvonmunchausen9516]

​@@brunsonmckinley5327This is all a conspiracy theory that requires you to believe (hold on to your pants) that the line of succession could be altered to accept a bastard king, the idea Elizabeth knew she'd have a boy(s,) that ladies-in-waiting are best friends rather than political appointments, that Cecil, Walsingham, and the heads of the families involved were all conspirators, and that a wizard and a nursemaid successfully delivered and evacuated the child(ren) to other families willing to take part in this charade. And somehow, the "real" Shakespeare is at the heart of it. Either a retroactive participant in, or posthumous-truth-teller of, or even the progeny of this delightfully wacky, incestuous and utterly cracked Rube Goldberg device. Don't delve too deeply into the rabbit hole I'm speaking of. It will make you lose all hope for critical thinking.

[@mariemorgan7759]

I have never seen this portrait before! Thanks so much for the explanation,I love art!🌹

[@emmahardesty4330]

Wonderful sleuthing, enthralling. To see the misplaced "capital" T in "That fruite of my love" feels definitive to me. Greatly enjoyed your scholarship. Ah, that Elizabeth Regina....

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hi Emma, Many thanks for your support. Much more to come. Kind regards david

[@sandraobrien8705]

I struggle to see how she could have had a secret affair, never mind given birth under the close scrutiny of the court, gossiping servants and the foreign spies all around her. Had papal spies or foreign ambassadors, English Catholics or disgruntled courtiers caught even a whiff of it, do you think they would have kept quiet?

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hi Sandra, thanks for your comments. What I am doing here is looking at the issue raised by what appears to be hidden in the poem in the cartouche and then from the facts available looking at whether or not there was opportunity for these events from taking place. There is no proof that they did. As I have said, the evidence is circumstantial. There is place of confinement, a courtier with whom she was having a relationship, and enough time for her to have delivered a child, and a possible placement afterwards. These are just small pieces in an incomplete jigsaw, which may fit with others when more information surfaces. Kind regards David

[@Crossword131]

No, Sandra,you are correct. The problem of numbers is the downfall of this specious and sensationalist theory. She likely did have affairs, but the idea that she bore a child from any of them is wildly difficult to support.

[@Mooseman327]

@@Crossword131 Actually, no it isn't. The American people had no idea that FDR was in a wheelchair for the entire 12 years of his Presidency. And this was in the 20th century. The Tudors had a long history of having bastards and hiding them from the public by planting them in the families of the nobility. "Wildly difficult?" Not at all.

[@Crossword131]

@@Mooseman327 The *Tudors* you're referencing... Are they *men?* Because its a very different thing when a king has a bastard. They don't tend to "hide" them. They usually give them lands and titles. Including the name Fitzroy, which I'm sure you are familiar with. Find me an example of a queen's bastard who was later determined to be the natural child of the monarch in question and I am happy to consider your point. My stance is that a female ruler has to play by different rules.

[@choosecarefully408]

@@Mooseman327 _Thank_ you for that. It's so difficult to get people to even _want_ to think, let alone question their beliefs, even peripheral ones. The FDR example is one I generally tend to forget. There are *so many others* affecting us today. But often, ones like this that hit hard & quick are more effective illustrations of this phenomenon at work. Thanks again, 😊

[@Petra1001uk]

around 20:55 where you talk about 'unkinde', if you think of the German for child, it's Kind (i pronounced as in 'king') - Is it at all possible that 'unkind' is a verbal twist on the words 'ohne kind': without child , but as we say in English, childless?

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Petra, Yes that's exactly right, it can be read without child/childless. regards David

[@chrish2277]

If the work was painted by a flemish artist, has anyone used a convex mirror to check for further hidden or obscured messages?

[@jwrigley100]

Have any Shakespeare scholars examined De Vere's known work with Shakespeare's work for stylistic and linguistic similarities? And if so where can their analysis be found please?

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Heath, Thanks for your question. Much work has been done on this topic. There is a book containing the early poetry of De Vere and many references to very early editions to Shakespeare's plays under different names. There is also one about Shakespeare in Italy which explores the journeyings of De Vere and the specific references in Shakespeare's plays. Unfortunately I am not a library scholar so I do not have this to hand. I would suggest contacting the de Vere Society and I'm sure they can give you specific examples. regards David

[@baronvonmunchausen9516]

Tl;dr: No. Not a shred of academically-based comparative, biological or circumstantial evidence supports the relationship between the two. Libraries are important, for all "scholars." Especially when they espouse historically inaccurate theories. I present exhibit A ^^^ (up there with no answer or library card. )

[@heidijohnes4277]

Fascinating. I suppose a girl who saw so many beheadings...even her own mother...would not want to throw her beloved child into the political arena. She saw so much death. As a mother, I would've done the same thing. He certainly looks exactly like her in the portraits. Based on those alone, it seems hard to doubt he was her son.

[@kam0406]

A lot of people in that area look similar. Hair color, eye color, skin tone and bone structure. It is really hard to say if they were related or just from the same geographic area.

[@Crossword131]

Do you think that she WITNESSED them, or that they happened while she was alive?

[@Short-Cipher]

@@Crossword131 Elizabeth was 3 years old when Anne Boleyn was beheaded. Even had she been older, she would never have been allowed to witness it, nor would she have wanted to. It's doubtful she ever witnessed any executions that occurred under her own rule, including the Duke of Norfolk and Mary Q of Scots. If she did, they was never recorded, whereas eyewitness news of the executions being reported to her were recorded.

[@Crossword131]

@@Short-Cipher yeah, so we agree? You're making my point.

[@Short-Cipher]

@@Crossword131 Yes.

[@Northcountry1926]

Dear Sir, Thank you ! Your presentations are cherished ! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[@sphinxtheeminx]

I am sure that it's possible. It would certainly explain why de Vere wanted Wriothesley to father an heir with Penelope Rich.

[@carolinebesinger8611]

Fascinating I can't wait to catch up. Thank you so much.

[@maybee...]

Beautifully explained, thank you it was very enjoyable. I would never have been able to make the connections.

[@tamarrajames3590]

With each upload…you draw me deeper into the mystery.🖤🇨🇦

[@robertshrewsbury2891]

Isn't this something that can now be checked with later generations and DNA testing? Good observation on your part.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Robert, The simplest way to rule out Henry Wriothesley as son of Elizabeth would be to do DNA tests on him and his father. I'm not sure if you have seen Part 11. I go into the family in some detail. Both father and son are buried in the crypt of the parish church in Titchfield. The local historical society applied to do perform DNA testing but permission was refused. I'm not sure of the circumstances. The bodies are in lead lined coffins and the crypt was opened some years ago to examine for water damage after flooding. If there is no DNA match then proving parentage by testing others would I suspect be met with much resistance. Kind regards David

[@lenorejones8339]

Edward De Vere is most likely buried in Westminster Abbey with the De Vere's famiy crypt in the coffin that says "here Lies a coffin" If only the manuscripts would be buried there with him

[@kaydonahue]

What incredible depths true love will endure to sustain the beloved!

[@jimnelson714]

It, s a analogy

[@magicgiggles1287]

For that far back in time you would need to test mitochondrial dna which requires an all female line. Men don't pass on mitochondrial DNA.

[@cassandra2249]

I've become absolutely fascinated by this, having coming across it by chance. Thank you so much.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Cassandra, Thanks for your comment. I am glad you are enjoying the presentations. Regards David

[@cassandra2249]

@@davidshakespeare1767 Hello David and thank you for acknowledging my comment. I particularly liked your presentation on the Pregnancy Portrait which re-connected me with Art history which I studied many moons ago and re-ignited my fascination with metaphor, myth and secret codes. Your presentations also illuminate that the history we receive may just be a construct which conceals rather than reveals and that there is more to Heaven and Earth than meets the eye.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

@@cassandra2249 Hello Cassandra, My next presentation is on the Rainbow Portrait which may be of interest to you as well. Regards David

[@AlannahRyane]

Thank you so much for thinking outside the box but also for. using the already discovered coding of the movers and 'shakers' of Elizabeth's time. Seeing it in another context adds another layer to the stories. Hopefully you amazing new age scholars will keep uncovering the secrets of the royal courts that still fascinate. Well done.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Alannah, Many thanks for your comments. The more I think about the Pregnancy Portrait the more convinced I become that it was designed to set the record straight about what really happened. I hope you will enjoy the second part which I will post shortly. Regards David

[@pamelameadows9717]

It seems ridiculous to me that if Elizabeth was pregnant that she would actually have them paint her portrait especially considering everybody's saying it was a secret pregnancy. That would have been a very dumb thing to do and I don't think she was dumb.

[@Ms.AggieMac]

Intriguing!! I found your first "Pregnancy Portrait" video this morning and have watched all those, and now these... It would be interesting to hear Petter Amundsen's interpretation on all of this (of History Channel's 3 part series: Cracking the Shakespeare Code)

[@AAwildeone]

I remember reading Beauclerk's exposition of the Prince Tudor theories some years ago in Lost Kingdom, and finding it incredibly convincing. Especially ER1's utter refusal to ever discuss succession, and only flirting with marraige proposals to manipulate domestic politics...all unreeling out of the common sense proposition that it is highly unlikely that a woman who could have whatever she wanted on demand actually remained a virgin. That being said, I must admit that all of this seems proper subject for the next Dan Brown-type novel...Cheer!

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hell Soren, Many thanks for your kind comments. Regards David

[@AAwildeone]

@@davidshakespeare1767 You're so kind to reply back! I'm really quite enjoying and admiring how in depth, yet accessible your work is. Your vids happened to show up in my YT feed, probably bc I am quite interested in Shakespeare authorship questions and have coursed through a few of Mr. Waugh's presentations. You seem like a terriffic writer, as well; looking forward to more! Cheers...

[@A.Hess7749]

Enjoying this very much. Thank you💕

[@colinallan1962]

The risks inherent in childbirth were very great and if Elizabeth was giving birth she would have wanted the best medical treatment on hand. This would have involved several people and could not have been kept secret. Her life was more important than any ( bastard ) offspring. We have to remember that times are different. You couldn't just slip away to Brighton for the weekend and have a baby.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Colin. Childbirth was very much women's work, carried out by those closest to the Queen. There was no medical treatment as such, unless problems arose. The women were totally dedicated and would not betray her. regards David

[@colinallan1962]

@@davidshakespeare1767 Childbirth was dangerous. The likelihood of dying was great. If pregnant she would have considered that this might happen. You have to ask yourself what preparations you ( or she ) might take if in this position. A sudden unexplained death would leave the country in chaos. One of Elizabeth’s major concerns was the succession and so this would be a situation to be avoided at all costs. Evidence of a serious illness affecting the Queen at the relevant time with rumours that she had made a new will concerning the succession might fit the bill. Is there anything from Greenwich like that ? I take it the answer is no. Given the care Elizabeth took over marriage/foreign alliance/succession the suggestion that she would treat pregnancy and childbirth in such a cavalier fashion doesn’t fit with her character.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

@@colinallan1962 Hello again Colin, I take your point, but I'm not sure all the concerns would have been uppermost in her mind in the eat of passion! Regards David

[@TheDemsk]

Childbirth is not as risky as modern medical professionals would have you believe. Remember--birth is a business now.

[@baronvonmunchausen9516]

​@@TheDemskwhat ARE you talking about? What does modern medicine have to do with the topic?

[@at723east]

At the beginning of Dead Poets Society, the new instructor requires the students to disembowel the introduction from their textbooks. An able minded reader might be able to understand the importance of that explanation of the structure of poetry after watching this video. But, it might be a more mental feat of gymnastics to gather the 'why' a master might misdirect the students to a plane of such ignorance. "O' Captain, my Captain" was clearly used to illustrate to the young men that he wouldn't give them the answers; merely lead them to it. (As any teacher worth his salt would.)

[@laurenpiantino8312]

Fascinating! You have a very discerning mind. Keep up the excellent work; and thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hi Lauren, Thanks for your support. Check out part 2! Kind regards David

[@michelehood8837]

I don’t know how someone as public a figure as ER could have possible been pregnant and given birth without everyone in her inner circle knowing and none of them blabbing.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Michele, thanks for your question. I am not sure if you have seen Part 2. In this I go into detail as to how this could have happened. During the year in question Elizabeth spent two extended periods at Greenwich Palace during which time she had no official visits. She was surrounded by a fiercely loyal group of ladies several of whom devoted their lives to her, and controlled access. A leak at this level would have been unlikely. At a more junior level, the maids of honour would have been less secure, but the threat of prison or worse might have kept them quiet. There is another consideration here, purely theoretical. If you wanted to secure succession as a female monarch, without your country ending up as a vassal state, or taken over by one of the ruthless English Families; would it not be a good idea to provide your own successor sired by one of your own courtiers who had no interest in empire building? This assumes of course that your heir came up to expectation. Henry Wriothesley would be good candidate for not doing so. Fascinating stuff. Kind regards David

[@Crossword131]

No, Michele, you are right. Don't believe the b.s. Its either clickbait or a personality disorder that allows for magical thinking without basis or substantiation.

[@AAwildeone]

@@davidshakespeare1767 I think David is being diplomatic here, emphasizing the personal loyalty and dedication ER1's inner circle displayed toward her. I would suggest you take a moment to contemplate or research the serious consequences to be feared for betraying even slighter royal confidances. Such a revelation cannot be considered in the light of modern celebrity gossip; in short, it would have been treason...

[@Crossword131]

@@AAwildeone please, soren, tell me to study more about the tudors. I haven't done enough research... Seriously I wrote my first paper in 1993. Maybe you should do more research.

[@AAwildeone]

@@Crossword131 Far be it from me to challenge the high school history report copied from the encyclopedia...but do go on.

[@Ardlien]

"She is my pain...She is my salve" sounds very similar to "Pain is pain's medicine"

[@KatjamiErosEa]

I enjoyed this video, thank you so much for your efforts!

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Kathleen, Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. regards David

[@VanLyfe420]

I'm swinging towards the idea that Elizabeth I was in love with Shakespeare...& since he was a "nobody" she couldn't openly love him.

[@robcampbell6700]

Absolutely amazing - thank you.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@lilydewinters4729]

You are easily becoming a favourite. Thank you!

[@Seamstrix]

You are incorrect about the 'Court of Wards' being a strictly Elizabethan practice. It had been functioning from at least the time of Henry VIII and I believe has its roots in the Middle Ages. For example, James Hardwick (brother of Bess of Hardwick) was taken into the Court of Wards in the early 1530's which caused the Hardwick family definite economic hardship since a significant portion of the monies from the estate went into the guardian's pocket not the family's. Burleigh certainly made something of an industry of wards during Elizabeth's reign but he didn't originate the practice.

[@BeveC21E]

There were a row of portraits in one of the palace/castle halls, that portrayed a great many of them of Elizabeth Wriothesly! This 'pregnancy portriat' as depicted as Elizabeth Wriothesley. The face in the 'Pregnancy' portriat as tagged as 'probably Elizabeth Wriothesley'. It didn't have the exact facial features as the others of Elizabeth W! The 2 Elizabeth might have been friends. Amazing coincidences.

[@andrewlangcake7431]

Interesting and clearly explained (As long as you pay attention and can recall previous points ) but a couple of things trouble me .I have no quarrel with the ideas of hidden messages and the use of symbols in Tudor art and poetry ,that is well established .However i'm not the least convinced that the author of these verses was Shakespeare by another name .They are too clumsy and lack the outstanding imagery ,lyrical rhythm and sophistication of his work .I also question the idea that Elizabeth had a child during her reign ,let alone in her 40s .Others have postulated that she had a secret child by Thomas Seymour in her teens ,that she secretly married Dudley at some point and even that she was an hermaphrodite .I admit the portrait looks a little like her but confirmation is impossible .The draping of cloth can't be taken as proof of pregnancy either ,with or without oddly positioned jewelry .The whole hypothesis is fascinating but mainly built on subjective interpretations ,i'm still glad I took the time to watch though .Wendy Langcake .

[@baronvonmunchausen9516]

Agreed.

[@hesavedawretchlikeme6902]

First I've heard of this one. Have read that Edward De Vere and/or Sir Francis Bacon were her sons.

[@karenabrams8986]

Ahhhhhh! The more I research Shakespeare the more complicated he gets.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hi Karen, Yes you are absolutely right, but one thing for sure is that he wasn't William from Stratford! regards David

[@annm.7176]

There's gossip to that effect and even written in books but I think there'd be more to it then hearsay

[@nobodyoxfordian9500]

Great job, love the video and its a nice addition to the discoveries going on. I am a PT and believe the 40 is for his position in the monarchy lineage as the 40th. The first I have been bale to findd is in his signature 1569, age 19, and his name would have been Edward 7th. So I listen with this perspective and your interpretation fits this theory in my mind. i love the summary at the end and will likely add that to my video as well and agree Waugh is discovery of these secrets and we are applying his finding to other works. I also have found a painting referring to Elizabeth pregnancy and should have it ready soon. Thank you.

[@savannahborn4025]

Please let us know when you upload

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello there, Many thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Regards David

[@catherinecrow5662]

@@savannahborn4025 Up now, if you're still looking

[@valansley]

Fascinating = Thank you for bringing this to light = I believe you are correct

[@applewagon253]

Delightfully thorough!

[@Crossword131]

And delightfully WRONG!!

[@henryford2950]

@Crossword131 How so?

[@trojanette8345]

IF true, do you think that Elizabeth (whether for curiosity or 'motherly' intentions) ever 'hosted' or met up with Henry, Francis (Bacon), or Rob't Devereux II -- 2 other contenders for being her sons throughout their lives or do you think she pretty much washed her hands of them?

[@nativevirginian8344]

Another person considered for Shakespeare authorship was Henry Neville. He was in the Tower with Southampton. E1 used to tease him about how much he looked like her father. The Neville family was known as the Kingmakers, lots of Neville women married royalty. His name is encoded in several places also, with de Vere’s.

[@karentucker2161]

He is in my family tree and she is no where in it. But his parents are and Shakespeare's grandparents are also in my family tree, both on my mom's side. We had family that worked for king Henry and one of them was his son's Edward tutor.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

You are lucky Karen. I am related to the man from Stratford. The one who didn't write the plays! regards David

[@Short-Cipher]

@@davidshakespeare1767 It would be a treat if you Ever had time to post your genealogical tree from yourself back to William of Stratford (surely I'm not the only one interested). I confess I'm naturally gullible in some ways and naturally skeptical in others, but that's what leads to my open-mindedness and willingness to consider different POVs before coming to my own conclusions (which may be never entirely concluded). When I first came across you in this digital realm, my natural inclination was to think your surname a pseudonym; how pleasant it has been to learn otherwise (and how deliciously ironic you should turn out to be an Oxfordian). I sometimes fear both you and Alexander Waugh, who in many instances I consider ingenious, skid precariously close to the rightly ridiculed imbedded ciphers of the bygone Baconians. But I'm not altogether ready to sneeze either of you off just yet, simply because I'm having some difficulty fathoming these numerical codes at first brush. I am fascinated, but not yet won over. Still, so far, I'm listening. I look forward to Part 2 of this presentation.

[@constancedenchy9801]

DNA tests would solve all of this

[@penelopecline4650]

Very many thanks for a fascinating presentation - I'm already looking forward to part 2.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Penelope, Very many thanks for your kind comment. The full text with many of the images is available at the link above. regards David

[@lincolnshiredetectorist4732]

This is very interesting for me as i am directly related to the wriothesley family.

[@christistratton]

I was side-swiped. Shakespeare was Edward DeVere? I immediately had to go investigate. Fascinating.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Don't believe what people tell you. Look at the evidence for yourself.

[@christistratton]

@@Jeffhowardmeade It depends on what is your definition of evidence . I am not a Shakespearean scholar, and I have no books currently on the subject. I went to a couple of different sites (allegedly) run by people who would know about the topic, and it looks like it may very well be true. However, I did not see any information against, and there is right now (as to what I have seen) no smoking gun, no DNA evidence of both parties. So it stands, at least in my mind, a possibility and that is all.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@christistratton You can go to the Shakespeare Documented website hosted by the Folger Shakespeare Society. It's full of documentary evidence that those who think Oxford was the true Shakespeare claim doesn't exist.

[@christistratton]

@@Jeffhowardmeade Thank you most kindly, I shall.

[@kathrynmcmullen2344]

Watch Michael Woods documentary In Search of Shakespeare which was aired to show how William Shakespeare was a real man and the writer of the famous plays. It is. Fascinating documentary with more than one episode. It may be available on KZbin.

[@SignsAllAround]

~31:25... 1571 Succession Act. I cannot find any information on this outside your reference to it here. Can you possibly point me to a source? Thank you for your fascinating presentations!

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello there, Thanks for your kind comments. The Act also goes under the name of the Treason Act 1571. If you go to shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org You will find an article about it in Brief Chronicles 1V (2012- 2013) page 39 by Thomas Regner. This raises doubt about the effect of the change in the Law, but does reference articles by Paul Streitz and Dr Paul Altrocchi. It is odd though that any such change was made the year Henry Wriothesley gained his majority.

[@Crossword131]

@@davidshakespeare1767 You truly should be an American.

[@baronvonmunchausen9516]

OR YOU COULD GOOGLE IT. Save yourself the propagandist version you've been pointed towards.

[@dale3404]

I have a hard time believing Elizabeth would have allowed to be painted a portrait of her being pregnant. It isn’t as if paparazzi were around taking surreptitious pictures.

[@AAwildeone]

...unless it was painted behind her back, commissioned by someone who didn't fear any consequences if she happened to find out such a thing had been done...

[@gigidodson]

Why the author says the painting was an allegory.

[@Crossword131]

@@AAwildeone Name one individual who had the money, audacity, will and political freedom to do so. I'll wait. A painting of that magnitude would cost a fortune and the repercussions of its discovery (had it been the allegory suggested here) would have been a free ticket to the block. Do not pass go, leave your head in the basket. Are you familiar with the idea of hearing hooves and thinking horses? You, who buy into this idea, are hearing zebras. Because you want to.

[@sharonj3979]

This is a woman who had her own cousin beheaded would you really risk gossiping about the queen!

[@toulminbrown9166]

Nobody's perfect 🤩 That by the way has got to be her heir to the throne assuming he becoming legitimate.

[@baronvonmunchausen9516]

​@@toulminbrown9166even if English isn't your first language, you seem to be unfamiliar with the way a legitimate line of succession works.

[@jillgott6567]

Are there direct decescendents of each and could they be tested? It would be extremely weak connection but might offer some proof

[@suemount6042]

Not so weak when you consider they found dna relatives of Richard The 3rd

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Well, technically, a virgin queen ought not to have descendants. Her siblings all died without issue, so that's a no-go, also.

[@dnr2089]

I thought Wriothesley was pronounced Risley?

[@UKLONYL]

I did get that far...interested in all the connections involving Titchfield!

[@mississaugataekwondo8946]

Much as I like this discussion, I don't see an actual link with the painter and de Vere and John Dee . If there is no link, how would all of these things you've pointed out be known by the painter. Perhaps you address this with another video.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello there, Edward de Vere was a member of a precursor to the Freemasons. As was the philosopher John Dee. He worked out a series of symbols, based on numbers which defined an individual's closeness to God. To learn more look at Alexander Waugh's video on 'The Divinity of Man'. These symbols were left as clues in texts and books to announce their involvement. It was a way of getting a message across without being caught. Another common was was ambiguity. The evidence suggests that whoever commissioned the painting instructed the artist exactly what to put into it. Being as there are strong references to the work of Shakespeare (ie Edward de Vere) and also given the setting it seems likely it was him. The artist was Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger who was the most prominent and indeed skilled court artist of the time. He would have been known to de Vere who was the Queen's most senior courtier. I hope this helps. Kind regards David

[@patriciaannholbert9432]

May I Dare I...believe my subconscious? That Elizabeth I transmuted time and on a stormy day, lightening struck my umbrella and WALKING toward me was a red haired woman. She asked was I ok? She obviously saw the lightening strike. I love you she said. I had just met her. She was so loving to me. Next, after that day, I saw her again in a portrait of Elizabeth I. I was born 1953...and Elizabeth I was 1535. I think. I remember her beautiful red hair..till this day. The lightening struck...It happened around 1996. Now, Queen Elizabeth II is my subconscious muse. By the way, I have red hair too. She was Crowned Queen on 6/ 3June 1953. I had to be 3 months old in my mommies womb. I was born September 11th. I dreamed as a child boarding a large ship. I remember being Christian at Church when it was Christmas. One day when I was around 35, someone left a cup of Elizabeth II Coronation and green 2 piece suit on my bed. Later, I found the saucer to the Coronation cup. It had been stored in a storage unit. And they were cleaning the unit out. The saucer was laying on the ground. I asked mother if she had left the Coronation cup at my house. She said no. But here in my hand was the Coronation saucer in my possession. When I was 18 years old a stranger, a man walked up to me. Looked me in my eyes then shook my body at the shoulders and screamed at me, "YOU HAVE ROYAL BLOOD IN YOU!" and left. Later I found mommies Passport. I asked her, where did she go using her passport? She just smiled and said nothing. One new years eve, my uncle, screamed at me, "YOU HAS A MAMMY, Not a mommy.' Weird and disturbing to say the least. But when I was 8 or 10 years old, I use to run around the yard on the farm I was raised on I ran around singing, "I'm Hen-e-rie da 8th I am. Hen-e-re the 8th I am, I am. I got married to the widow next door, he's been married 7 times before....and every one loves Hen-er- we da VIII I am....I am...I got married to da Widow next door and she's been married 7 time before....and every one loves Hen-Er-ree...HEN-ER-RREE THE 8TH I AM...I AM, I AM.. LOL!!! I was wondering who named me Patricia Ann? I read where Prince Phillip's cousin is named Patricia Montbatten. On a Saturday morning at my home...2 Anouncers were talking about Queen Elizabeth had another daughter. You remember The Princess Royal name is Anne. My name is Patricia Ann. Weird right. Lol!

[@1976mcfarlane]

What was your maiden name? I mean there might be something to this..

[@patriciaannholbert9432]

@@1976mcfarlane Thank you.

[@rooruffneck]

I love this stuff, but one problem is when we begin piling up more and words and numbers that we consider codes for de Vere, we reach a point (and it seems we are there) where we simply can't not find de Ver if we are looking for him. More and more videos are cropping up that find 17, and 1740, and 57, and Ver, and Ox, and Apollo, and swallow, and on and on.... Some people even allow translations from other languages to these words... I'm not saying these findings can't be valid. But now that we can approach any poem or documents with dozens of symbols to search for, I can't imagine we won't find de Vere in there somehow.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello there, Yes I agree with you. It is very difficult to apply statistics to these occurrences. Indeed I approached a very distinguished statistician over my findings and she was unable to demonstrate anything over the 95% confidence limit. We are dealing with circumstantial evidence here and what we are looking for is based on firm knowledge as to how the Tudor mind worked, particularly that of John Dee and his associated mystic followers. Everything that they did had to have some degree of ambiguity otherwise it was curtains for them. We are really at the very beginning of trying to unravel what went on, so I share your frustration. I am not claiming that all these assertions are true fact, merely that we need to keep an open mind. The truth is out here! kind regards David

[@rooruffneck]

@@davidshakespeare1767 I appreciate your response and thank you for the clarity. Your videos are outstanding and you give us a lot of food for thought. I'm somebody who is pushing for Oxford as the writer and any and all ideas can bring us closer to the kind of verifications I'm looking for. Thank you!

[@vedabrunero2214]

What do you think of the ideas portrayed in the film Anonymous?

[@kathrynwilkie9242]

I also think the Turkish style hat and veil was added at a later date to disguise the signatory hair dressing of the queen at that time.

[@georginamannor4373]

He certainly resembles her.

[@monicaluketich3106]

Remember that most of Europe's and Russia's nobility were all interbred with each other. Uncles married nieces, cousins married cousins...If the 'son' had any royal blood in him, he could have looked like her but not be related. It is an interesting story- but until they do DNA analysis, any story could be considered.

[@michellemorgan3667]

I fail to see how she could keep a pregnancy a secret when everyone in court and the world were watching her every move. An heir is what the people NEEDED for stability of England if she was preggers or even looked it and then no baby way too many questions would be asked

[@Odanti]

David, Are you related to William Shakespeare? I'm related to Martha Washington. President George Washington's wife. Martha had two children when she married George Washington. Martha's son married into my family. Martha Washington is my Great Great and the Great's keeps moving on ...Grandmother. I love your work. I think that I'm going to re see this first part. You have shown so many facts, I want to see it again. Awesome work, David!!! PS You might just teach me to love poetry after all. 🤗

[@simonruszczak5563]

Henry, like his grandfather. Could have been Henry IX.

[@seanodonovan5451]

great video mate

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Thanks Sean, Check out part 2. Regards David

[@seanodonovan5451]

@@davidshakespeare1767 I did. It's very interesting. Thank you

[@suemount6042]

Of that love fruit which are the words directly caught by the line Makes more sense to me

[@pwnorthwest]

“A crown of Bays shall that man wear That triumphs over me.” Bay leaves are from the Laurel tree. Apollo was often depicted wearing a crown of laurel leaves. The laurel crown was symbolic of victory. 🍃

[@kerryqueen2786]

Elizabeth was Shakespeare, there is no disguising the syntax. The poem is very revealing on many different levels and the issue of the writer not being able to say what she wanted to in a straightforward way is there. The poem also gives the impression that if the author cannot express herself she will die. Elizabeth rules but can only say so much. The female aspect of Shakespeare's plays says even more.

[@charlottecobain6986]

Lol…this isn’t a thing.

[@timefoolery]

I don’t know how anyone can question whether she had a child when she was under the keen eye of her father, then her stepmother, then her brother, then her sister, and finally the court at large. There’s no way she could disappear to go into confinement for any length of time that wouldn’t raise suspicion. And this constant need to say someone else wrote Shakespeare’s plays is ludicrous when you take into consideration that there’s ample evidence that he existed and went to a decent school to gain a classical education. There’s even evidence of Shakespeare’s wife, Anne, having existed. It’s a moot point with me.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hi there, thanks for your comment. I'm pleased that you took the time to look at the video. Best to keep an open mind. The weight of evidence in favour of Edward de Vere is overwhelming on all fronts. In the UK unlike in USA it is taking a long time for the establishment to admit it. Largely as a result of self interest, both academic and financial. Regards David

[@baronvonmunchausen9516]

Am I crazy, or is this a non-answer? None of the points were addressed. @davidshakepeare just told you the evidence of DeVere being Shakespeare is overwhelming, but nothing about the confinement or scrutiny Elizabeth was under. Elizabeth's history and Shakespeare's *aren't conjoined.* Although it seems like it if you read these comments. Why not answer the questions about Elizabeth? That's interesting. I wonder if @davidshakespeare is trolling or schilling for an agenda or elaborate social experiment. To see how many Americans it takes to unscrew the lightbulb flickering over their head...

[@paulcrowley5646]

I'm a dedicated Oxfordian, but I have to say that I agree with all that "Crossword131" has written here (I don't think he said anything about authorship). Elizabeth was under intense scrutiny all her life. Everyone paid her the closest attention, and anyone who suggests that she might have been pregnant to full-term is simply not paying attention. Had a whole section of her maidservants been 'liquidated' (USSR style) at some point, then such 'theorists' might have the beginnings of a case. But nothing like that ever happened. Elizabeth had plenty of enemies, but not one of the hundreds of people who were in a position to know ever made such an allegation. It's sad to see so much effort (and skill) devoted to such a hopeless exercise. On an allied topic, take another look at the Oxford poem you quote: A lover rejected complaineth The trickling tears that fall along my cheeks, The secret sighs that show my inward grief, The present pains perforce that Love aye seeks, Bid me renew my cares without relief; In woeful song, in dole display, My pensive heart for to betray. Betray thy grief, thy woeful heart with speed; Resign thy voice to her that caused thee woe; With irksome cries, bewail thy late done deed, For she thou lov’st is sure thy mortal foe; And help for thee there is none sure, But still in pain thou must endure. This poem is not just bad -- it's ridiculously so. Oxford did write appalling poetry -- as parodies. Look at the awful alliterations ("present pains perforce"), the sheer banality, the clumsy meter. the bad rhymes, the frequency of monosyllables, the self-pity. No half-way competent poet in any age (and certainly not the Elizabethan) would produce such tripe. Oxford was making fun of the poetry of his rival. He does it several times, including in the canonical sonnets. Once your eyes are open to the possibility, it's easy to spot the sonnets that are not just bad, they are zingingly so. Naturally, the Stratfordian academics, given their simple unquestioning faith, miss every one.

[@Crossword131]

I agree that a scholastic brain like his is sadly misspent on a topic like this. He would have made an excellent art historian. Mainly for the fact that most art historians also disappear up their own skirts. But truly, there is a lot of time and effort in this endeavor and I respect that. My problem is that in the search for substantial evidence he ignores truly problematic issues, for example: Walsingham would have known of the painting, and had it had any of the inference that this video implies, would have immediately had it burned. And its makers and procurers as well. Add to that the fact that Elizabeth did not bestow any lands and titles to Wriothsley, whilst living or posthumously. This would be odd, considering the hypothesis put forth here.

[@Short-Cipher]

As "a dedicated Oxfordian", you may be a minority of one who considers Oxford's juvenilia "appalling poetry", in addition to some of the "canonical sonnets". Each to his or her own...

[@Short-Cipher]

@@Crossword131 @Crossword131 Walsingham died in 1590, at least a decade before this allegorical portrait is thought to have been painted, so that point is moot. If Wriothesley was Elizabeth's natural child, which I am by no means convinced, why so hard to fathom she had disowned him? By that point in her reign, there are many reasons that could be adduced as to why she would have, that I have neither the time nor the inclination to map out here. I do, however, appreciate your arguments and skepticism.

[@paulcrowley5646]

@@Short-Cipher There's a world of a difference between 'juvenilia' and 'parody'. It's very easy to tell one from the other if you have some slight grasp of the language and the context. A very young Shakespeare might not have written great poetry, but he would never have written verse so densely packed with poetic horrors as you can see in that poem (and in others of the same ilk).

[@Crossword131]

@@Short-Cipher Because I doubt that a woman who looked into the eyes of death would disown (although that assumes she had "owned" him in the first place) a child she took such a risk to bear. I truly believe that the men jn this argument have a wobbly position to start with. You cannot be a woman and feel that childbirth is a lightly taken enterprise. Period. It was, and remains, a terrifying, unknowable experience that no female takes lightly. To believe this theory is to believe that E1 had no fear of the potential consequences of an illegitimate or difficult labor. That's where I have to make my excuses and depart.

[@dmkuchins6646]

This sounds very much like the type of connections made in manic psychosis.

[@suemount6042]

That’s a bit insulting and harsh

[@jakejacobs1227]

The significance and symbolism of the wrap in Gheeraerts' portrait intrigues me. It's as if the lady is covered by netting bringing to mind the miracle of the fishes. Christ's post-resurrection and final blessing to his disciples was to enable them to net 153 fish (John 21:11). The church fathers, including Jerome, wrestled with the gematria of the verse and numerical significance of the catch. Certainly John Dee would have understood the significance. 153 was a well-established number in Christian numerology with the canonical gospels recording Jesus giving 153 blessings during his ministry. It seems that gematria has been applied to John 21:11 more than any other New Testament verse but does this aspect tie the symbolism back to deVere?

[@a_lucientes]

It sure looks like it could be her like likeness. _Wriothesley_ is a an interesting name, if only because it's pretty uncommon. 'The surname Wriothesley was first found in Staffordshire where the family name was first referenced in the year 1170 when Adam de Wrotteslega held estates in that shire. Tettenhall-Regis was an ancient home to the family.' -wiki

[@aerden2]

I suggest you take a look at the portrait of Mary Browne, Henry Wriothesley's mother. They look exactly alike. I go with cranial structure versus elaborate theories every time.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Chantal, Thanks for your comment. I take your point, but remember that Mary Browne was just 13 when she was painted. I can find no other painting of her. I have just posted my study of the Tower Portraits of Henry Wriothesley which you may find of interest. In this paintings the face is identical to that of his teenage mother, but nor the same as 3 years before or 13 years later. The Tower portrait was a political statement to placate the new king. What better than a convincing likeness to his mother. I am no threat to you I have relinquished my right to the throne? regards David

[@jimnelson714]

It:s an analogy!

[@kathrynwilkie9242]

I think the lower portion of the cartouche represents a female pelvis with the lower loop appears to be a representation of the birth canal?

[@willshaw6405]

Oh, jeez. C'mon...

[@annamack5823]

I don't see why there would be any great controversy about this now. Southampton's line died out a long time ago.

[@a_diamond]

"still leven" could also be translated to "living still" or "still living". (Yes, I'm Dutch..) Stilled living would basically mean a snapshot of life. A single moment. There is a play on words to be made though.. making it her only "still living" child, perhaps? You mentioned the two birds, maybe one twin didn't survive.

[@jophoenix3919]

Very interesting . To be QUEEN has strict rules for appearance the suffice of youth haunts the aged.

[@a_diamond]

@@jophoenix3919 keep in mind that Elisabeth 1st had plenty of reason to believe she would not become Queen.. (basically until Mary died)

[@christinecook1865]

the thorn shape is like the rune Thurisaz

[@maryoleary5044]

Fantastic

[@kirstencampbell2593]

I have wonder this it would happened during the time she had " Small pox" and she had a fruitful dress painting.

[@Weeeewriter]

*I have always been fascinated with history, so I have to admit that I have never heard of rumors of Elizabeth's possible children out of wedlock. She always claimed to be a virgin yet was apparently very lusty by nature lol Thank you for the video, very intriguing. Hello from Canada.*

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello there, Many thanks for your kind comment. It makes the hard work worthwhile. Kind regards David

[@Cristobels-Green-Boots]

@WeeeWriter: The movie ‘Anonymous’ gives a plausible account of Elizabeth & the Earl of Oxford’s love affair…also, the true identity of ‘William Shakespeare’- here portrayed as a drunken idiot, who believes himself as a superstar… This story dovetails with the complementary story of the two sons of the Earl, one being Elizabeth’s child! It all ends in tears, but is a beautiful, stylish narrative of ‘secrets, very well kept’ 🙏🏽💔🙏🏻

[@bluestar.8938]

Thank you : )

[@salcuti6421]

There is that picture of a possible pregnant Elizabeth…she’s is in a strange costume and this lady def is pregnant..

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

It's not Elizabeth. It's by Marcus Gheeraerts circa 1590-1600, by which time Elizabeth was at least 57 years old.

[@nativevirginian8344]

I believe so.

[@erpthompsonqueen9130]

Thank you.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Pleasure glad you enjoyed it. Plenty more where it came from. Kind regards David

[@americanwoman9342]

Why would Elizabeth claim celibacy with the Virgin Queen title and then allow a pregnancy portrait? I have followed your prior pregnancy portrait videos with great zeal.. I believe she may have had secret children..

[@user-xk4wj6ge5b]

Tarot by janine said "no".

[@antidoteify]

To me its yes its all in The EYES.

[@rerimontgomery6272]

I am stunned totally stunned

[@patriciahein2867]

DNA would settle that wouldn't it? They have taken DNA from Egyptian mummies, so it should be possible. Does DNA evidence only apply to paternity?

[@jeb284]

If she had a child, she would of made them heir. Their ego is big enough that she would of tried her best to get him to be king

[@tag4995]

England was her only child with her fickle love she nurtured with years of peace

[@newtexan1]

Southampton is queen I the first. Edward DeVere, the 7th Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare.

[@johnhopkins6658]

Henry XIII was also a poet.

[@jamellfoster6029]

This man resembled Elizabeth I...

[@lowspark68]

39:12 "anti-clockwise"? What's that? Don't you mean counter-clockwise?

[@marymcsherry1965]

In England and Ireland we say anti-clockwise..

[@mrsred2u668]

If she had a child she would of made him her heir. She probably would of not hidden it. She didn’t have to ! Kings had children out of wedlock. She was queen she could do what she wanted.

[@SKILLIUSCAESAR]

A bastard queen with a bastard heir? I’m sure that would’ve gone off without a hitch… especially with Mary of Scots, miles away jocking for her seat…

[@baronvonmunchausen9516]

The biggest shock of this video is how many people belive the fantasy that this is possible. Its fun, but its junkfood for your mind. There should be a warning label saying if you don't have a background in Tudor history, you cannot ride this ride.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hi there thank you for your comment. Always interested to read what people think. I am merely presenting facts in a way that a more general audience can study for themselves. What conclusions they come to is up to them. Sadly here in the UK exploration of alternative explanations is crushed by those who cling to the status quo. I do hope you are not one of them. It always pays to keep an open mind. regards David

[@rickmarquis3008]

I was convinced that de vere was her son, she had him at 17 from seymour,...

[@tag4995]

man sees what he wants to see

[@Argo-xm4je]

Very interesting stuff! Compelling case for Elizabeth's motherhood and in that case most likely Oxford was the father considering timeline and court events. The more one hears about these theories the more one becomes an authorship sceptic. What really disgusts me is to witness the way Stratfordians argue their case; are they really doing it on purpose? If a sceptic puts a well structured and well researched and grounded argument, what is always the orthodox reply? Counter-arguments? Counter-proofs? No, COUNTER-ASSERTIONS! So, I am in a court of law being tried for murder, the accusation brings forward proofs, statements, phone recordings, financial statements, witnesses and I my defence is merely "No it is not so, that's all lies". Really? Is this the best that 400 years of scholarship has to offer? No wonder then more and more scholars are becoming sceptics. The more I think about it, the more I feel that I would rather buy a used car from the sceptics than from the orthodox. If I intended to buy a car and I had 2 cars in mind - one from a highly respected European brand, the other from an obscure asian brand but recommended by friends. I go to the 1st dealer, they tell me of the brand, how many cars they have sold, the awards they got, how many factories they got, so on and so forth. I go to the 2nd dealer, they tell me that they acknowledge they started recently, they show me the car specs, they bring the "blueprints", they show me all the tech details to a professional driver and go through the engineering details in depth. Which one shall I go for? The 1st has the brand reputation behind it, but the 2nd has superior technology and engine, better materials, even runs on less fuel and the parts are available everywhere, besides being cheaper. Tough decision?

[@chickyrogue8485]

omg...early MEMES

[@marilynwade9448]

What about DNA uses in modern research