Who were the parents of Edward de Vere's son?

Please note that an illustrated pdf of this is to be found at: drive.google.com/file/d/1tL2B...
In this presentation I explore the evidence doubting the parentage of Henry de Vere, the son of Edward de Vere and his wife Elizabeth Trentham. I start by sampling some of the evidence in the literature and then look at the possible scenarios and tie these in with the known movements of the people involved. This goes right to the heart of the Vulgar scandal referred to in the Sonnets.

[@spiderlady1943]

I am so intrigued by all this - wouldn't it be great if we could time travel and go back to see what was true. Love the way you present your material - marrying the very old with the very latest. Looking forward to your next presentation.

[@patricktilton5377]

This is sheer speculation on my part, based somewhat on Mr. Waugh's 'VULGAR SCANDAL' hypothesis, being that Edward de Vere needed to have a son to inherit his earldom, but had become unable to father children himself -- perhaps due to a wound suffered in those brawls revolving around the Vavasor affair. Waugh makes a good case that the 'scandal' -- which could only be alluded to in contemporary documents -- involved Oxford getting Henry Wriothesley to impregnate Penelope Rich on his behalf, the child produced from that secret dalliance then being raised as the supposed natural son of Oxford and his new countess, Elizabeth Trentham -- the 'Immaculat virgin' referenced in the later encomium. Although I realize that Waugh is not a proponent of the 'Prince Tudor' Theory -- i.e. that Oxford and Queen Elizabeth were the actual natural parents of Henry Wriothesley -- nevertheless, it seems to me that IF H.W. were in fact the secret son of Oxford and the Queen, and IF Oxford was 'lame' (i.e. rendered impotent by Knyvet's groin-aimed rapier) and needed SOMEBODY to serve as a 'stud' to father a secret son, then there is a biblical precedent for just such a scenario: the Levirate Marriage. In GENESIS there is the infamous story about how the patriarch Judah had three sons by a Canaanite wife -- a big no-no for the righteous descendants of Noah's son Shem, which would include Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel and the latter's 12 sons -- and the eldest son of Judah, named Er, was struck dead by God for some unspecified reason . . . leaving behind a widow named Tamar, as yet without child. The law of Levirate Marriage held that the next brother, Judah's second son Onan, had a legal responsibility to "raise up seed" on behalf of his brother. However, Onan didn't like the fact that if he were to impregnate his late brother's widow, the child would not be reckoned as his own -- whereby he committed 'coitus interruptus' and "spilled his seed upon the ground" -- prompting an angry Jehovah into striking him as dead as his older brother Er. Tamar was expected to wait until the 3rd son of Judah was old enough to impregnate her, but when young Shelach was finally old enough to do the deed, she was still left high-and-dry and, thus, took it upon herself to solve her dilemma. She posed as a whore, her veil disguising her face, and seduced the father of her deceased husband Er -- Judah himself -- becoming pregnant by him. This 'Bed-Trick' was a device used in two of Shakespeare's plays, ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL and MEASURE FOR MEASURE. So, IF Oxford was 'Shakespeare' -- and I have no doubt that he was -- and IF he needed someone else to beget a son on his behalf, then the best choice for a surrogate father would be someone whom Oxford himself knew to be of his own bloodline. IF Wriothesley was the secret son of Oxford and the Queen, then Henry de Vere -- despite being a 'bastard' child -- would have been Edward de Vere's actual grandson, raised as his pretended son by his current countess, Elizabeth Trentham. As far as anyone knows, Elizabeth Trentham never had any other children. Maybe she was barren -- the polar opposite of the very fertile Penelope Rich -- and COULDN'T bear children at all. Maybe that's why Oxford was willing to marry her; by doing so -- and assuming everybody involved was in on the Plot -- he would be granting a good woman an opportunity to be a mother to a changeling child, the only motherhood role she could ever know, helping to raise a boy who not only would be Oxford's lineal offspring -- a son who was really his grandson -- but who was also the unacknowledged grandson of her Queen. It goes without saying that IF this is what happened, it had to be done in secret. It might be an open secret, with quite a few people in on it, but heads would roll if they were to blab about it overtly. The only references to this 'scandal' would have to be made covertly, in cryptic texts (like WILLOBIE HIS AVISA) that would be open to interpretation. Again, I have no way of verifying whether these speculations are true or not. Waugh has done most of the heavy-lifting in his excellent videos. He probably doesn't go the extra mile and factor in a possible link with the Queen in this secretive bloodline. My spidey-senses tell me, though, that Oxford knew all about the Levirate Marriage theme present in the Bible, and would consider such an option to be morally permissible. Yet such would hinge upon his surrogate 'stud' being of his own bloodline -- either a brother, or perhaps a cousin . . . or the secret son the Queen bore him, one born as a changeling himself, though with royal plausible deniability. If only we could get DNA samples from everyone allegedly involved, THEN perhaps we could unravel the puzzle beyond any doubt. Use of the Levirate Marriage solution to solve problems regarding the lack of an Heir may have gone out of style a long time ago, but I don't find it out of the realm of possibility that a desperate man who knows that the scriptures provide for such a remedy would be willing to make use of it -- as long as everybody involved were knowledgeable and willing participants (and ready, willing and able to keep the Secret). It would have to be and remain a State secret, but it was something that could have been done, with even the Queen agreeing to it. The biblical precedents would provide a sense of justification for them. And, remember, in that story of Tamar she ended up bearing children who avoided being half-Canaanite by tricking Judah into begetting them -- and the line, of course, would eventually lead to King David and ultimately Jesus Christ. Only if Henry Wriothesley were actually of Edward de Vere's bloodline could the use of the biblical Levirate Marriage be justified. Otherwise, Oxford would have had to procure the services of one of "the Fighting Veres" -- either Sir Francis Vere (b. 1560, d. 1609) or Sir Horatio Vere (b. 1565, d. 1635), who, respectively, would have been 32 and 27 years old in 1592 when the begetting was accomplished, Wriothesley being 19 years old at the time. Oxford couldn't -- and, I dare say, WOULDN'T -- have had just anybody perform the begetting of his Heir. He required a near-blood relative -- which makes "the onlie begetter" (Mr. W.H., a.k.a. Henry Wriothesley) most probably Oxford's secret son. In my opinion!

[@margarethoskins6625]

Phew..Very interesting reading.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Patrick, Thanks for your thoughts. Of course we don't really know what happened. What I tried to do was to look at all the possible scenarios in clear way to give the reader the chance to assess it themselves. As I'm sure you noticed that Alexander made a valid challenge about the birth of Penelope Rich (later Clifford). This is critical to whether or not her mother Penelope could have been the mother of Henry de Vere. It all rests on the date carved into her memorial. I am due to pay the church a visit shortly as I hope this will resolve the issue. I'm not sure that a child by Penelope Rich would have been a big enough scandal, but if Elizabeth Trentham had a child by Henry Wriothesley, that would have been in a different league. Kind regards David

[@guruuDev]

Very interesting, makes sense. Elizabeth Trentham may have agreed to the arrangement for various reasons. She may have had a child out of wedlock or failed pregnancy with complications making her unlikely to bear children. Seems a bit of tidy detail that the child was conceived after a precise interval of the two being married for '6 months.' This seems like a standard minimum time frame for a newly married couple to have conceived their first child. So they may have planned the process this way. Get married, wait 6 months, then have Henry and Penelope proceed with the next phase. Devere may have dropped hints in the sonnets that the dark lady, acting on her own, seduced the young lad. This would be to muddy the water and misdirect people away from the real story. Elizabeth I may have been part of this whole scheme to keep the Oxford Earldom for Edward and Henry who were perhaps her 'immediate descendants.' There is a syndrome where biological parents and children and even biological siblings separated and so unable to share normal family bonding of living together, will, when they meet later in life, sense their genetic relatedness and want to have sex. They feel the need for this intimacy to make up for the separation. They feel an overwhelming compulsion. I saw a documentary on this. This could explain why Elizabeth and Edward and Henry may have engaged in strange incestuous entanglements -- as evidence seems to indicate.

[@patricktilton5377]

@@guruuDev In my opinion, this whole 'incest' angle -- unfortunately utilized in the underwhelming movie "ANONYMOUS" for its shock value -- is widely off-the-mark. What was Oxford's attitude regarding Incest, we might ask? Look no further than HAMLET, where the marriage of Gertrude to her brother-in-law Claudius was considered to be Incest -- though if Prince Hamlet didn't already exist, then it would have been permissible, under the law of the Levirate Marriage, for Gertrude to become impregnated by Claudius, so as to "raise up seed" to the deceased King Hamlet. I maintain that the Incest-theme in HAMLET owes some of its >oomph< to the situation Henry VIII faced in his papal-sanctioned marriage to Catherine of Aragon (Henry's late brother's widow). The dilemma Henry VIII faced led directly to the severing of ties between the Catholic Church and the protestant Church of England . . . and this split of Christendom is alluded to thematically in HAMLET insofar as Prince Hamlet had been out of Denmark when his father the King died. Where was Hamlet? From where was he recalled to Elsinore following the ascendancy of his uncle Claudius to the throne that was rightly that of Hamlet himself? He was at Wittenberg. In Act I, King Claudius says to Hamlet: "For your intent / In going backe to Schoole in Wittenberg, / It is most retrograde to our desire." In other words, Hamlet had been IN or AT school in Wittenberg -- the very place where Martin Luther kick-started the Protestant Reformation by nailing his document to the church door there. Why, of all places, would Shakespeare have associated the schooling of Hamlet with Martin Luther's notorious Wittenberg, when he could have had Hamlet pursuing his schooling in any of a number of cities famous for places of learning? In my opinion, it is the Catholic-Protestant divide that Shakespeare intends as a thematic undercurrent in the play. Indeed, it is the clash between the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and the Protestant rejection of it that creates the tragedy in HAMLET, for the Prince comes to wrongly believe that the soul of his murdered father suffers eternal damnation in Hell, rather than temporary suffering in Purgatory. Hamlet wants Claudius to suffer eternal damnation for having murdered his brother (Hamlet's beloved father) and incestuously whored his sister-in-law -- because Hamlet doesn't accept the doctrine of Purgatory, even though the Ghost speaks explicitly about his sufferings being "for a time" and not for Eternity. In other words, Hamlet is a Protestant-doctrine believer in a universe where the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is part of reality -- all because Hamlet got his education in Wittenberg. Hamlet, in attempting to force the hand of God to damn Claudius, unwittingly brings upon himself his own damnation, for it IS considered damnable for a sinner -- and Hamlet IS a sinner, as he himself acknowledges -- to be unwilling to forgive the sins of others. The 'tragedy' of Hamlet isn't that he and many other in the story end up DEAD. Death comes for all. It is that Hamlet deserves to suffer DAMNATION for killing his uncle in such a moment where his sinning uncle cannot possibly repent of his sins in time to warrant a last-second reprieve from God's justice. Claudius killed his own brother -- but the late King Hamlet's soul went to Purgatory rather than to Heaven because of the status of his partially sin-stained soul, and that was the fault of King Hamlet alone. Hamlet, unfortunately, due to his mis-education in Protestant theology in Wittenberg, mistakenly believes that his father's soul is suffering the torments of Hell, rather than of the Purgatory he doesn't believe in, due to his Protestant doctrinal beliefs. Shakespeare -- i.e. Edward de Vere -- took his theology seriously, enough so as to include the doctrine of Purgatory in his greatest tragedy, despite England being officially a Protestant country. Catholic attitudes regarding Incest -- attitudes shared by Protestants, no doubt -- did not condone such behaviors. If Henry Wriothesley had been the product of Mother-Son incest -- i.e. incest between Queen Elizabeth and her secret son Oxford (as "ANONYMOUS" alleges), then Oxford would have deemed it to be a horrific tragedy, a taint upon the 'Fair Youth' rather than something to be secretly gloried in. Admittedly, Adonis was the result of incest between his mother Myrrha and her duped father Cinyras, and so the pursuit of 'relations' with him by the goddess Venus would necessarily involve the Incest theme, at least potentially, so I can see why some Oxfordians jump to conclude that Wriothesley was produced by Incest of some sort, given that Shakespeare wrote VENUS AND ADONIS, the "first heir of [his] invention." However, Shakespeare never brings up the incestuous parentage of Adonis within the text of his narrative poem -- when he could have done so, had he intended the Incest-motif to apply to Wriothesley subtextually. As Alexander Waugh has stated, though, Shakespeare changed the type of flower at the end of the story, deviating from his Ovidian source text, so as to link the blood of Adonis [Wriothesley] with Penelope Rich. Yet if Wriothesley was intended to interpreted as a child of Incest, then that would link Oxford with Cinyras, and Elizabeth with Myrrha -- but Myrrha was the daughter of Cinyras, and Elizabeth was most assuredly NOT the daughter of Oxford!

[@guruuDev]

​@@patricktilton5377 Fascinating, lots to consider. If Devere was love child of Elizabeth, did he know it when and if he had sex with her? He would have been 22. Perhaps she succumbed to compulsion to have sex with a child whom she could not raise as nature intended. If so, did he ever know it? Perhaps he assumed she was not his mother but merely the mother of their son Wriothesley. Did he find out later that Elizabeth was also his mother? If Elizabeth was not his mother, then there is little of incest in the situation. He is merely arranging to beget an heir via his son Wriothesley, preparing to raise a grandson as his son to maintain the Earldom. Penelope is no family relation to Wriothesley. Is this any worse than the countless royal bastard love-children, raised by surrogate parents, given false identities to appear to be the actual children of those parents? I suppose he would be doing it on purpose, not merely to repair the effects of an accident. But desperate times call for desperate measures. Rigid pious principle soon becomes bent and adjusted to accommodate shifting circumstances in the real world. The prospective male child would become a wealthy and powerful Earl, and legitimately be of the correct bloodline to inherit the title. And, as you say, there is the scripture to loosely justify such an arrangement -- though no actual incest occurs. But still, as you point out, the Venus and Adonis mythology was all bound up in full blown incest. Would he have chosen that theme if no actual incest was involved in his own story. No metaphor is perfect. The incest in Ovid's original would not have to match note for note, his own situation. But if he was a love child of Elizabeth, then actual incest (product of natural human compulsion) permeates the whole story. Then the incest theme in Venus and Adonis definitely becomes applicable to his own circumstances. If so, he would be very careful not to indicate this too specifically. But he would want to speak to the reality, however indirectly. As far as scripture goes re purgatory and heaven and hell, was Devere likely to be fixated on such stark axioms as though the Bible is a rule book for judging sinners and how they are to be punished. The character of Hamlet is caught up in trying to judge and met out punishment -- 'to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.' But did Devere, the author hold such views? Remember, he was a Royal Arch Free-mason (or proto version) and believed in sacred math and geometry. Christianity implies that the power of faith transcends all potential opposition. 'Faith moves mountains,' 'whatsoever you ask in prayer, you will receive if you have faith,' 'ask and it is given.' If this applies to all, then at the end of the day we can interact only by mutual accord. If we have this power, it remains for us to learn how to employ it. Jesus implores his followers to do this. Would the sacred math and geometry spell out this equation or would it say we are to be damned for our sins permanently in a fiery hell or temporarily in purgatory? The Royal arch Freemasons/ Rosicrucians etc. were into this sacred math and geometry. A central aspect of this was about raising kundalini energy up through the chakras -- to ultimately align with divine truth which sets all free. In Twelth Night, Malvolio ponders 'M O A I.' This is reverse of tones for raising chakra energy. Chakra geometry was built into facades of Cathedrals. Davinci and Devere were in these same secret societies and were perhaps using these principles to heighten their creative powers. I think there was a lot more going on there than a question of 'permanent hell' vs 'purgatory' or rigid hair splitting (no pun intended) rules about what is or isn't incest. Prospero breaks his staff and drowns his book renouncing power over another. All are presumably set free in a scheme of free will -- where all ultimately have the power of faith to ask and allow what they will. Earthly life does seem to present us with a bippy boppy prospect of power of assertion and the strong prevailing by force. It begs the question of what is the ideal solution at the end of the day. Perhaps that solution already exists and we can use it to dispel any illusion to the contrary. The problem serves to beg the solution. If Devere was on the ball, I assume he had this sort of take on things. He wanted to be fair and truthful in the spirit of right principle from one's heart more than by rigid letter of the law, implying external judgement. Ha ha, if you read this far, thanks for indulging my rambling rant.

[@tamarrajames3590]

What a great mystery, and clearly, there was a great deal of speculation at the time as well as the years between then and now.it is sad to think we may never untangle this knot…but if it remains unsolved…it will not be for want of trying on your part. Thank you for sharing your discoveries.🖤🇨🇦

[@russellmartocci323]

Wanna hear a hunch? I suspect the arm sling refers to the tower painting of Henry Wriothesley and, it's a code know only to the Oxford family, which signifies the broken line of succession. Perhaps the slings were medically necessary, but I suspect they're a code intended to convey the "rightful line of succession".

[@guruuDev]

Makes sense as a visual metaphor: a branch or arm of the family, broken and partly concealed yet still attached -- and possible to heal and restore to full function.

[@guiguencex7670]

Interesting hunch Russ. I suspect the sling is communicating some sort of encoded meaning, and I agree it is most likely political and having to do with the succession. Pretty cool idea.

[@spinstersuccess6941]

This is very interesting. Thank you for posting it.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Kathleen, Many thanks for your feedback. regards david

[@Bootrosgali]

Was Alexander Waugh the first to map out letters like this ?

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello there. No he wasn't, a man named John Rollett started it, experimenting with different word blocks. It was Alexander who took Rollett's work into a new dimension. His work has been the key to unlocking many aspects of the Tudor mind. Regards David

[@mississaugataekwondo8946]

I commented on one of your other earlier videos about John Dee and the sonnets suggesting that if Trentham sold the sonnets to help fund purchase of Hedingham in 1609 and Dee dies in 1609, is it likely that a man nearing death would be link up with the printer on a project like this. Dee was out of favour and had lost influence by this time. There doesn't seem to be any linking of the printer and Dee other than the complex explanation of the introduction to the sonnets. Another author has suggested that there is a picture of Trentham and she was supposed to look very much like the queen. That would certainly make her interesting to de Vere and many others. Also, I see Trentham either buying Hedingham for her son or for her family, which you suggest was very acquisitive. And going back to the birth, she appears to be a women who would do whatever it took to get what she wanted and having a male heir was essential to retain whatever she had for her family, if not for the child. Also, Robert Cecil was sniffing around everything during this period, as well, and was involved with almost everything after the death of his father. Further, we have the death of Marlowe shortly after the birth of Henry that appears unrelated but might also figure into the mix. In short, I think you need more players investigated. That said, thank you for a very interesting presentation and I look forward to more.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Mississauga, Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. I hadn't made the connection with the death of John Dee. There is a follow up to this video. My learned friend Alexander Waugh believes that Henry de Vere was the son of Henry Wriothesley and Penelope Rich. I visited the monument of Her daughter Penelope Blount and then made the argument that there was no time for her to fit in the pregnancy. You will see his comments and my replies. Kind regards David

[@mississaugataekwondo8946]

@@davidshakespeare1767 I am not convinced that Trentham would cheerfully take on another woman's child and I like your timetable for Rich's likelihood of a pregnancy so soon after her latest one. I don't see her as a woman to sleep with just anyone. She hated her husband but still delivered multiple children and seemed faithful to Blount. That said, Avisa is a tough one to fit into this picture. One thing that both Trentham and Rich had in common was that they were given permission to marry unlike others such as Vavasour and Vernon. I think there is some interesting elements to the maids of honour or other ladies in waiting who were permitted to marry. I will watch the suggested video.

[@johnanthony8653]

There is a rebus in the shape of Libra scales, Henry Wriothesley's supposed birth sign. The words include: INSVING SONNE, HENRIE TTTT, TELA in the left-side bowl, ROSE in the right. TELA is Spanish for "cloth," so TELA ROSE might mean ROSE CLOTH, referring to the Tudor Royal Mantle. Or, the letters could be spelling ROSETALE, to be pronounced as ROSE-TA-LEE (Wriothesley). The Gematria values of TTTT (four T's) and OXFORD are the same (76). Is the rebus telling us that Wriothesley was the father of HENRIE TTTT (OXFORD / de Vere), or that Wriothesley was HENRIE TTTT and therefore an Oxford?

[@martinlivesley1069]

Or maybe it’s saying the Royal line went,The Queen>Oxford(17)>Henry Wriothesley

[@johnanthony8653]

I'm going to have to revisit these rebuses someday. I may have figured out some more about them. I show how the 'Two Henries' portrait tells us that Wriothesley was a Tudor and the father of Henry de Vere in my last video. Here's the link if you're interested: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2iQf2She7lnoa8 @@martinlivesley1069

[@patricktilton5377]

If you go by the 24-letter alphabet, where both I and J are considered the same letter (i.e. the 9th), as well as U and V (the 20th), with 'w' = 21, 'X' = 22, 'Y' = 23, and 'Z' = 24, then adding up the values of the letters spelling 'DE VERE' gives us 4+5+20+5+17+5 = 56. By sheer coincidence, the name 'HAMLET' gives us 8+1+12+11+5+19 = 56. The spelling found in Saxo Grammaticus, 'AMLETH', yields the same number, taking the final 'H' and shifting it before the 'A' of Amleth, of course. Curious how both 'DE VERE' and 'HAMLET' equal the number 56, i.e. 7x8. And 'EDWARD OXENFORD' contains 7 + 8 letters. Curious, that!

[@guiguencex7670]

I'm with you David regarding the dedications of the narrative poems and the deep love the author feels towards the dedicatee. All I do, all I've done and all I will ever do (paraphrasing), "decidedly yours" ... it seems like Storge to me (love a parent feels for a child), but in these dedications and also in the Sonnets, the author seems to place the dedicatee / fair youth (Southampton) above himself with a sort of royal reverence. It's interesting to contrast the selfless language from dedications with the earlier letters from Oxford to W. Cecil, where de Vere claims his real property, and indeed his own time, is his to exploit for his own fulfillment and not for Cecil's (or his family's) happiness. Beyond these dedications, is it possible the narrative poems of Venus and Adonis, and Lucrece, are a pair of deeply real, autobiographical pieces to tell the story of the author's 25th and 26th years to his two oldest "children" and explain how each was conceived, and how they are not biological siblings? Why publicize something so deeply personal in this way? Royal succession was the "A" topic of the moment in the 1590s and it must have been planned for (we're talking about W. Cecil after all) and just as the historical plays were used to galvanize and prepare an island nation for war with Spain, these best selling narrative poems could have been the purposeful preparing of the national psyche for what was to come. William Cecil would accept the airing of his family's dirty laundry in The Rape of Lucrece (his daughter Anne's rape and his granddaughter Elizabeth's parentage by the predator, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester) if it would mean his great grandchildren would be Tudors and rule England. Venus and Adonis explained to Henry Wriothesley that he was the 'natural issue' of a lusty Queen and a young de Vere. Both poems combined to provide a backstory to "the deal" struck between Cecil, Queen Elizabeth and de Vere for royal succession through the betrothal and marriage of Southampton to Elizabeth de Vere, and as a propaganda piece (along with the first 17 sonnets) to apply pressure to and convince Southampton to do it. Just a thought.

[@johnburman966]

Unless you are deeply into a path of self realization it is hard to understand "Shakespeare". For example the sonnets describe his path, his divine love, and spiritual revelations. In his time religious authority controlled what was believed so he would have had to be deceptive and secretive.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Thank you for this very excellent and informative presentation. There is a lot to digest here and much to praise. By way of light censure I think you rush a little too uncritically into acceptance of Sylvia Freeman's theory that Lady Clifford (the illegitimate daughter of Penelope Rich and Charles Mountjoy) was born ‘lets say’ on 16th March 1592 on account of her baptism being on 30 March of that year. You do not mention that the gap between Henry Vere's birth on 24 February and his baptism on 31 March 1593 was well over a month. There was no hard and fast rule about being baptised within two weeks of birth and indeed the baptism of illegitimate infants was often difficult to arrange as many priests refused to conduct the ceremony. The question of course is when did Lord Rich know that the baby was not his? To be baptised aged two or more was not uncommon. On her tombstone Penelope Clifton is described as being 23 years old at the time of her death on 26 October 1613 which means that she was born in 1590 or late 1589, not 1592. [EDITED CORRECTION 13 June 2022 - The tomb states 'aetatis suae 23' which means 'in the 23rd year of her age - in other words she was 22 at the time of her death in October 1613]. Sylvia Freedman came up with a bizarre theory that at the time of her marriage to Sir Gervase Clifton in 1608 she lied about her age to the executors and Trustees of her father’s will (they being Sir Edward Blount, Sir William Godolphin, Henry Berkeley and the earls of Suffolk, Southampton and Salisbury and Lord Knollys) pretending to be 18 so that she could have her marriage portion early. All these eminent men, friends of her late father, were apparently duped by this lie and coughed up, as were all her siblings etc, and then (according to Freedman) Lady Clifton’s husband compounded the lie by having her fabricated age at time of death carved onto her gravestone many years later! How likely is that? What would be the point of revisiting the lie after her death when they had gotten away with it years earlier? By making the ‘lie’ public in this way would Sir Gervase not be running the obvious risk of people in the know saying ‘No, the tombstone is wrong she was only 21 years old when she died”? What is much more likely is that Lady Clifton was born in 1590, [EDITED CORRECTION as 13 June 2022 should read 1591] as her tombstone suggests, came into her marriage portion when she was 18 years old in 1608 and consequently, on account of her new found wealth, made a good marriage in that year to Sir Gervase Clifton. Freedman was very keen to have no overlap between Penelope Rich sleeping with her husband and with her lover Mountjoy. This I believe was what motivated her into suggesting this rum cock and bull about lies on tombstones and the defrauding of Mountjoy’s friends and trustees.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Alexander, Many thanks for your contribution, and indeed the point which you raise about the birth date of Penelope Lady Clifton. Sally Varlow in her biography also gives the christening date as 30 March 1592, as does the familysearch.org. from the original records. I think a long delay between birth and christening is unlikely, firstly because an earlier daughter died soon after birth, and secondly there would have been no reason to delay it. The daughter was christened as a "Rich" it wasn't as though there was a delay so that Blount would have been an appropriate surname. The baptism was at Clement Danes just across the road from Essex House and it is reasonable to conclude that the birth took place there, so very convenient for an early christening. The other point is that she had many brothers and sisters who would have been well aware of her age, and I think unlikely to have been duped. I had to put down a marker somewhere in considering the pregnancy and a delay of two weeks seemed a reasonable estimate. Kind regards David

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

No one is disputing the date of the christening. The point is simply this: we have two historical records, a Christening date and a rough date of birth indicated by a church monument. Neither you nor Sylvia Freedman seems prepared to explain why both cannot be correct. Sally Varlow does not enter into any discussion of lies on tombstones. In general it is much safer to go with the simplest interpretation namely that both documents are correct and there is no conspiracy of lies laid out upon the tombstone. There could be any number of reasons why the christening was delayed. I would suggest a paternity problem as one of them. Perhaps she was only christened at all because she was worryingly ill at that age. That the record of March 1592 states she was the daughter of Lord Rich does not greatly help, since we know she was acknowledged by her true father Mountjoy in his will. We still need some explanation of why it was remotely sensible to publish this supposed lie on a church monument after her death when any number of her many siblings might blow the gaff.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

​@@alexanderwaugh7036 Yes I take your point, but perhaps the marriage to Gervais Clifton was so favourable that the trustees and family thought it expedient to agree the dowry. Not withstanding I think I may have the answer. I have downloaded a high resolution image of the monument of Gervais Clifton's first 3 wives, which is at St Mary's church Clifton. I am happy to send it to you. In fact the interpretation of the tombstone is wrong, the age at death was 22 years. The age at death is very close to the edge of the slab and there is space only for XX11. She died on 26th October 1613. If she were born in March 1592 (new dates), she would have been 21 in March of 1613(New dates). This was probably before Lady Day so the year would have still been 1612. She died the same October which was then 1613. Counting in years this may have resulted in the age being recorded as 22 rather than 21. Best I can do. Regards David

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

@@davidshakespeare1767 I have only just noticed this reply given six months ago. My apologies. As I have posted in the comments section of your Part 2 video there was no need to fudge Penelope Clifton's birth on her monument on account of her conjectured false claim to being older than she really was in order to bag her marriage portion to which she was not eligible until she was 18. We know this because the £5000 settlement was made over to her in December 1612 when she was 21 or 22, not when she was 18 or (according to your theory) pretending to be 18. If you look at the right hand margin of the inscription there were plenty of other letters ranged equally close to the edge of the slab as the final I in XIII. Are you saying that these were mischievous additions too?

[@lenorejones8339]

Thank you Thank you for finding the portrait of Edward Vere his son by Ann Vavassor Still want to know more about his life !!

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hello Lenora, Yes I found it by chance> He does look bit like his father. Kind regards David

[@lenorejones8339]

@@davidshakespeare1767 Yes he does. My son was totally rejected by his father and just raised by me, so I feel for him he was a scholar and a translator like his father. I'm not a believer in the whole Penelope Rich saga, Seems much more likely he was Elizabeth and Edward De Vere's son. Waugh goes off on tangents if you ask me. I love your work. Where can I see that portrait in color ?

[@davidshakespeare1767]

@@lenorejones8339 it was in a collection at Raynham Hall in Norfolk called the Vere Captains. Not sure if it is still there

[@lenorejones8339]

@@davidshakespeare1767 Thank you so much for all your brilliant work David ! When I was teaching Theater at a college in Iowa someone placed Looney's books "Shakespeare Identified" on my dorm room doorstep and I have been obsessed ever since !

[@russellmartocci323]

Of course, these vids are very good and I enjoy them very much. There is a cross check system for the embedded words. You must be able to find three confirmations of any text. This cross check system is covered by Alexander Waugh.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Hi Russell, Thanks for your comments. Yes I was introduced to all this by Alexander several years ago. Regards David

[@judithparker4608]

Thankyou....I believe 11 days were removed 1752....Oct 4th.,next day 15th !

[@miashinbrot8388]

No. At 8:00, the cross potent contains 21 letters; "Heed deVere's paternity lie" contains 23 letters. So there is no way that that sentence can be an anagram of the letters in the cross. There is a D and an E missing, so I suppose the cross could be anagrammed to "Heed Vere's paternity lie". Similarly, the St. Peter's cross contains 9 letters, with 10 letters in "E. Vere's line". Again, the cross COULD be anagrammed to "Vere's line" -- but neither of these crosses is a perfect anagram of what you say it is. These errors remove credence from your argument.

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Thanks Mia, I will have another look at it. Regards David

[@vetstadiumastroturf5756]

Heed Vere's Paternity Lie = Tiny Earl De Vere Pee Shit De Vere was known to be diminutive in stature. Defecation (esp. pooping and farting) were used by contemporary writers to signify Vere

[@dafydd56]

Sonnet 29 when in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes I ALL alone beweep my outcast state. Sure I learnt that 10 syllables in each line ???

[@davidshakespeare1767]

Guilty as charged. I forgot the "I" regards David

[@justme-tj3jt]

It is not rare to get pregnant very soon after the baby is born. ANd because these women did not breastfeed themselves even more so.

[@vetstadiumastroturf5756]

"Heed Vere's Paternity Lie" (no D E ) According to William Camden, it is acceptable to use the same letter more than once, so it could be "Heed de Vere's Paternity Line" (another solution is "Tiny Earl de Vere Pee Shit" so you know....)

[@vetstadiumastroturf5756]

another solution would be "H. Vere's Paternity Lie - Dee" It was Henry Vere's parentage that was a lie, and Dee is the encoder.

[@od1452]

MMM. Thank you interesting. I'm not an expert on this period but I have heard/read over the years about " manly" love..but interestingly nothing about the female version. . Could that be a possibility ? Women rarely marry down the socio/economic ladder. ..unless they need one of the two. And since many young Jacks lost their inheritance I suspect some ladies had likely candidates ... if they could stomach them. I would think a 30 year old attractive unmarried woman would attract more negative attention then, then now but I don't know. I would also look at eye color and dimple chins ..lol