Southwell, Stanley, the W.S Issue & Death of Prince Tudor
PWDBard
which can help illuminate the confused mind of Grumman on the issue of who was
"my cousen W.S." as discussed by Wood in part three of his documentary film:
In Search of Shakespeare.
Dear Ron:
That was my reaction as well when I saw Wood building upon his intimate
knowledge of interconnections among Catholic families (including the
Southampton/Wriosthesly). Wood postulates that Southwell (the executed Jesuit
poet) was referring to the Stratford man in that 1616 edition of Southwell's
poems when he refers to a "cousen W.S.". Actually, I mention this argument by
Wood briefly in my long essay in The Oxfordian (2003/volume six)...Bardgate:
Was Shakespeare a Secret Catholic?"
It is possible to argue that W.S. might be some fellow named William
Southwell, but the name William strangely does not show up frequently in the
Southwell genealogies. But after the film was over Wednesday, I reviewed my
Southwell file to look again at Christopher Devlin's work The Life of Robert
Southwell (1969) upon which Wood relies heavily. Devlin is one of the major
figures behind the Catholic Bard movement going back into the 1960s when the
orthodox scholars such as Rowse and Schoenbaum dismissed people like Devlin and
Peter Milward...as crazy Catholics/Jesuits who were pushing the Catholic
Connection for personal reasons..."special pleading" was Schoenbaum's polite
description.
In any case, on page 264 in Devlin's book there is genealogical chart
showing the "remote connection" the very Catholic Vaux family had with on the
one side the Arden-Shakespeare clan in Warwickshire and a much closer
connection to the family of Robert Southwell. Robert's granduncle Anthony
Southwell married into the Vaux family. One branch of the Vaux-Throckmorton
family links circuitously through the Arden family tree to John Shakspere and
his son, William. This is indeed a "remote connection"...which Wood makes no
effort to be honest about in either his book or film.
I agree with you completely that W.S. might refer to William Stanley
(Derby) and any reasonably close genealogical connection would be extremely
important.
This would be in addition to the smoking gun documentation I already have in
hand linking Derby directly...either by himself as Shakespeare or in
conjunction with Oxford as dual Bards. It would be icing on the cake. But is
there in fact a
a Stanley-Southwell connection? Possibly since the extended families carrying
these names were quite large. But a distant connection...would that still be
meaningful at that time in a much smaller society were related in some way?
Finally, the reference that you make about Southwell (who later became a
fanatical Protestant with a virulent hatred of Catholics and Spain) having
consulted a priest or confessor..shows that he was well within the Catholic
orientation of his family in the early 1590s. Indeed, at that time, one could
argue as someone has somewhere that he was essentially a protege of the then
still diminished Howard clan angling to get back some of their former influence
and power.
Furthermore, Southampton's older and (only sister?) had married an
Arundel...a very close relative of Charles Arundel the mortal enemy of Oxford.
So this was a odd marriage to advance politically...and it is doubtful that
Oxford was enthusiastic...and when it did not pan out, Burghley or rather
Charles Howard who owned the wardship rights...quickly began exploring other
potential matches with other aristocratic families. The de Vere-Southampton
match was dead long before 1594...and the de Vere-Derby match was already in
the works before....yes before the registration of The Rape of Lucrece on May
9, 1594.
If there was a secret royal bastard born of the Queen as rapidly
diminishing number of Oxfordians still believe...one born prior to the 1571
Parliamentary Act...and one alluded to in Leicester's Commonwealth (1584) as
being from Leicester...it was in all probability that Arthur Dudley
fellow....the fellow who foolishly traveled to Spain to advance himself in
1586-1587. Phillip II who had his own claim to the English throne in two
respects via marriage and via John of Gaunt probably had Arthur Dudley killed
since he would have been a headache, a pest if he really was who he claimed to
be. We hear nothing more of him.
After reading extremely shocking Leicester's Commonwealth (Charles Arundel
or Robert Persons are indeed excellent bets for the author) and its amazing
commentary on that "natural issue" passage in the 1571 Act...you wonder why the
Ogburns ever pushed the Southampton as Prince Tudor (a secret royal bastard)
theory. Persons was definitely the author of equally controversial but less
salacious A Conference on the Next Succession to the English Throne in 1594 and
if there had been a secret royal bastard still alive, he would have alluded to
it in 1594. He did not. A strong indication that if there had been a secret
royal bastard then that person was dead by 1594.
The biggest fact which the Cherry-picking advocates of Prince Tudor
refuse to deal with is that in 1573....shortly after the Queen had been
excommunicated by the Pope...the Queen and Burghley would have NEVER entrusted
any or any more secret royal bastards to any family inclined toward
Catholicism...such as the Catholic Wriosthesley/South ampton family. Totally
out of the question. The historical-political context and the absence of any
real solid evidence to indicate that Southampton was not born of the Earl and
Countess of Southampton points to one inescapable conclusion: Southampton
was..well...Southampton.
Ironically, Michael Wood and the Prince Tudor advocates seem to have one
thing in common: a desire to interpret the Sonnets addressed to the mysterious
Fair Youth as a father-to-son relationship to sidestep the homoeroticism which
so many others still see in these poems.
It is worth noting that despite his anti-homosexual reading of the
Sonnets, Wood in his film at one point slips up when he talks about the affair
with the Dark Lady when noting that it was adultery..."this time with a woman".
He should have said "this affair with another woman"...meaning other than Ann
Hathaway.
But Wood said "this time with a woman". Was he tossing a small crumb to
the homosexual community in his efforts to make or transform the traditional
Bard into a more inclusive Icon for the Global Village? Why not be politically
correct all the way? A secret Catholic and a homosexual? But Wood hesitates
with his Hamnet (the son) as the deceased "Fair Youth" theory. For Wood,
Shakespeare could have been/was a secret Catholic...but hopefully not a
homosexual...whereas most Stratfordians historically have choked at the idea of
him being a crypto-Roman Catholic but admit that perhaps...perhaps the Sonnets
point to him being bisexual. Rowse ironically would not even allow that
possibility.
Peter
lyra
(excerpt)
> That was my reaction as well when I saw Wood building upon his intimate
> knowledge of interconnections among Catholic families (including the
> Southampton/Wriosthesly). Wood postulates that Southwell (the executed Jesuit
> poet) was referring to the Stratford man in that 1616 edition of Southwell's
> poems when he refers to a "cousen W.S.". Actually, I mention this argument by
> Wood briefly in my long essay in The Oxfordian (2003/volume six)...Bardgate:
> Was Shakespeare a Secret Catholic?"
>
> It is possible to argue that W.S. might be some fellow named William
> Southwell, but the name William strangely does not show up frequently in the
> Southwell genealogies.
There are a couple of 1500's Walter Southwells at familysearch.com.