Last night I worked on my floor plan for the Georgian house I have in mind. For two years I am still in the basement getting the servants quarters, just right – and the kitchen! I just found the manor of Sir Ralph Lane – and my mind is off authoring Historic Fiction! Ralph is by a fire in the library discussing the works of Samuel Danile and Shakespeare. The Beaver family lived here! Hmmmmm! And Sir Walter Fleming!!!! Worth a long study – this!
John ‘The Shakespearian Futurian’
My Family Tree – Lane, William (rootsweb.com)
Parishes: Orlingbury | British History Online (british-history.ac.uk)
My mind to me a kingdom is;
Such perfect joy therein I find
That it excels all other bliss
Which God or nature hath assign’d.
Though much I want that most would have,
Yet still my mind forbids to crave.
No princely port, nor wealthy store,
No force to win a victory,
No wily wit to salve a sore,
No shape to win a loving eye;
To none of these I yield as thrall,–
For why? my mind despise them all.
I see that plenty surfeit oft,
And hasty climbers soonest fall;
I see that such as are aloft
Mishap doth threaten most of all.
These get with toil and keep with fear;
Such cares my mind can never bear.
I press to bear no haughty sway,
I wish no more than may suffice,
I do no more than well I may,
Look, what I want my mind supplies.
Lo ! thus I triumph like a king,
My mind content with anything.
I laugh not at another’s loss,
Nor grudge not at another’s gain;
No worldly waves my mind can toss;
I brook that is another’s bane.
I fear no foe, nor fawn on friend,
I loathe not life, nor dread mine end.
My wealth is health and perfect ease,
And conscience clear my chief defence;
I never seek by bribes to please,
Nor by desert to give offence.
Thus do I live, thus will I die,–
Would all did so as well as I!
Sir Edward Dyer Poems > My poetic side
Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester – Wikipedia
WYTHMAIL MANOR. Widmale was rated at 2½ hides in 1086 and was held by Fulcher (Malesoures) of Walter the Fleming. (fn. 60) A later survey, temp. Henry I, assigns only 1½ hides and 1 virgate to Withmale, (fn. 61) the other hide being in Orlingbury (see Beaver’s Manor above). The manor, like that of Beaver’s, formed part of the honor of Wahull (Odell), and was held by the Malesoures, and later their successors the
Orlingbury Hall – The Green, Orlingbury, Northamptonshire, UK – Pre-Victorian Historic Homes on Waymarking.com
Originally there was an older manor house standing in this pretty area of the village. This house was the home of the Lanes, Toftes and Chibnalls. It contained 20 rooms and 13 hearths in 1678.
Orlingbury Hall was bought in 1706 by Richard Young and according to Justinian Isham was then immediately rebuilt in 1709. The entrance remains the original design and the house has nine bays. There is a 19th century addition of a service wing and a dovecote.
Orlingbury Hall – The Green, Orlingbury, Northamptonshire, UK – Pre-Victorian Historic Homes on Waymarking.com
Ralph Lane, 1530?-1603
Sir Ralph Lane (ca. 1530-October 1603), first governor of “Virginia,” was born in Lympstone, Devonshire, England, the son of Sir Ralph Lane (d. 1541) and his wife Maud Parr (daughter of William Lord Parr) of Northamptonshire. He is believed to have been a cousin of Edward Dyer, the poet. In 1563 he entered the service of Queen Elizabeth I as equerry and did a variety of court tasks, including searching Breton ships for illegal goods in 1571. In general, however, Lane was better suited as a soldier than as a courtier. After serving as sheriff of County Kerry, Ireland, from 1583 to 1585, he was invited by Sir Walter Raleigh to command an expedition to America. He sailed on 9 Apr. 1585 under Sir Richard Grenville, with whom he soon began to quarrel. Towards the end of June, they arrived at Wococon on the North Carolina Outer Banks and established a colony with Lane as governor.
After Grenville departed for England in August, the colony moved to Roanoke Island where it remained for the next eight months. As supplies became scarce, the colony was plagued with bickering and quarrels among its members and with the natives. Lane reportedly was not diplomatic in dealing with the Indians and often reacted violently to provocation. He quarreled with Wingina, an Indian chief, who was attempting to organize neighboring tribes to attack Lane’s group. Lane solved this problem by killing Wingina on 10 June 1586 before the surrounding tribes convened and then managed to disperse the rest of the group. The next day, 11 June, Sir Francis Drake arrived and promised to leave men, supplies, and a ship. However, a hurricane blew the ship out to sea and plans were changed. Lane, discouraged, decided to return to England. In the frenzied rush to be gone, three colonists, exploring up-country, were left behind, and in an effort to lighten the ship’s load, valuable records were destroyed or thrown over-board. Lane returned to England on 27 July 1586 and never again commanded a colonial expedition, probably to the benefit of everyone. Ironically, Grenville’s relief squadron arrived shortly after Drake sailed for home, causing widespread criticism of Lane for leaving Virginia when he did. It has even been suggested that Lane’s distrust of Grenville led to his abandoning the colony.
It is thought (without much proof) that Lane was the first to introduce tobacco to England. Following his return, Lane set down a “Discourse on the First Colony,” which was sent to Sir Walter Raleigh and later printed in Richard Hakluyt’s Principall Navigations (1589). Afterwards, Lane wrote another treatise on his experiences as a colonial commander and sent it to Lord Burghley on 7 Jan. 1592. In it he emphasized the need for strict discipline to avoid illness among the soldiers.
Shakespeare, Oxford, and Verbal Parallels
by David Kathman
Joseph Sobran’s article “‘Shakespeare’ Revealed in Oxford’s Poetry” claims to provide “conclusive proof” that Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, was actually the author of the Shakespeare canon. Sobran’s “proof” consist of verbal parallels he has found between Oxford’s acknowledged poetry and Shakespeare’s plays and poems, and he concludes that, “[t]aken all in all, these parallels disclose the working of a single mind. They can be reasonably explained only as the work of the same poet at different periods of his development. We can rule out alternative explanations — coincidence, convention, or imitation — as untenable.” To which I can only reply, “Oh, really?!?” Sobran’s astonishing naivete and ignorance of both Elizabethan poetry and attribution studies would be amusing, were it not for the fact that many people are likely to take this article seriously. I can only begin here to outline the massive problems with Sobran’s methodology and conclusions.
Sobran seems to be unaware that lists of parallels such as he provides have long been looked at very skeptically in attribution studies, since writers in any era consciously or unconsciously influence each other and draw on common sources. This is especially true of Elizabethan poetry, where writers freely borrowed from each other and drew upon a large stock of common themes and images; and among Elizabethan poets, it is particularly easy to find parallels in Shakespeare, simply because his canon is so enormous and varied. Sobran acknowledges that one can find parallels between any two authors, but wildly underestimates the number, and he has apparently made no effort to compare any other writers with Shakespeare. Instead, he arbitrarily decides (on the basis of no evidence) that we could expect to find “a dozen or so” parallels between Oxford and Shakespeare, with an upper limit of “three dozen,” and when he finds more than this arbitrary limit plucked out of thin air, he considers it “evidence,” even “proof.” But the huge majority of the parallels Sobran lists are Elizabethan commonplaces, and given his generous standards as to what constitutes a “parallel,” a similar list could be compiled for any Elizabethan poet with a canon the size of Oxford’s.
As an illustration, I chose one of Oxford’s fellow court poets, Sir Edward Dyer, picked one of his poems from the edition in Stephen May’s 1991 book, Elizabethan Courtier Poets, and started looking for parallels (of the type listed by Sobran) using a Shakespeare concordance. The poem in question is 80 lines long, but I stopped after 12 lines because I was finding so many parallels. Below are the first 12 lines of Dyer’s poem, followed by more than a dozen parallels to the work of Shakespeare. (Line numbers are from the Riverside edition.) This list only includes parallels which share at least one word; if I had more time (and patience), I could undoubtedly add to the list with less exact correspondences.
Bewayling his exile he singeth thus
He that his mirthe hathe lost, whose comfort is dismayed, Whose hope is vayne, whose faith is skornd, whose trust is all betrayed, Yf he have held them dear and can not ceasse to moan, Com let him take his place by me, he shall not rew alone. But yf the smallest sweete be mixt with all his sower, Yf in the day, the monethe, the year he feele one lighning hower, Then rest he with himself, he is no mate for me, Whose feare is fallen, whose succor voyd, whose help his death must be. Yet not the wished deathe which hath no playnt nor lacke, Which making free the better part is only nature's wracke; Oh noe! that were to well, my death is of the mynd, Which alwayes yeldes extremest pangues but keepes the worst behind.
He that his mirthe hathe lost (1)
I have of late… lost all my mirth (Ham. 2.2.296)
whose hope is vayne (2)
So that all hope is vain (Cor. 5.1.70)
whose faith is skornd (2)
How can these things in me seem scorn to you,
Bearing the badge of faith to prove them true? (MND 3.2.126-7)
whose trust is all betrayed (2)
Trust nobody, for fear you be betrayed (2H6 4.4.58)
Yf he have held them dear (3)
So will the Queen, that living held him dear (2H6 4.1.147)
I hold my life as dear as you do yours (R3 3.2.78)
I never knew man hold vile stuff so dear (LLL 4.3.272)
Madame, he swore that he did hold me dear (LLL 5.2.444)
My ring I hold dear as my finger (Cym. 1.4.133)
Come let him take his place by me (4)
Arise, and take place by us (H8 1.2.10)
But yf the smallest sweet be mixt with all his sower (5)
…thou shamest the music of sweet news
By playing it to me with so sour a face (R&J 2.5.23-4)
Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour (R2 1.3.236)
(plus many more juxtapositions of “sweet” and “sour”)
Yet not the wished deathe (9)
Had I as many sons as I have hairs,
I would not wish them to a fairer death (Mac. 5.9.14-5)
Which making free the better part is only nature’s wracke (10)
the better part (uses this phrase 12 times)
If Nature, sovereign mistress over wrack (Son. 126.5)
My death is of the mynd (11)
Death, having prey’d upon the outward parts,
Leaves them invisible, and his siege is now
Against the mind (KJohn 5.7.15-7)
Sobran finds great significance in similarities which are yawningly commonplace to anyone with a passing familarity with Elizabethan poetry. For example, he writes that “[a] notable habit Oxford and Shakespeare share is the use of ‘contraries’: paradox, antithesis, contrast for effect.” But such use of contrasts was one of the most common devices in English poetry, and can be found in the work of any poet. Just to take the Dyer poem quoted above, line 5 contrasts “sweet” and “sour,” and later in the same poem Dyer contrasts “best” and “worst” (31), “sweet” and “accurst” (32), “yea” and “noe” (34), “man” and “woman” (47-8), “prince” and “poore” (52), “young” and “old” (52), “farre” and “neere” (56), “trothe” and “ficklenes” (58).
Elsewhere, Sobran finds it significant that “Shakespeare often refers to Cupid; so does Oxford, and in the same terms.” Well, of course he does — they were both writing love poems, and reference to Cupid was almost obligatory in such poems, with the standard accompanying imagery and cliches. (Actually, Cupid is only mentioned twice in Oxford’s sixteen undisputed poems, plus twice more in the four poems possibly by Oxford.) Sobran finds it remarkable that both Oxford and Shakespeare employ such commonplace images as the morning sun melting the dew, the lark as herald of the morning, worms feeding on the dead, eyes “feeding” on beauty, the wounded deer, the fleeing hare, and many more, images which can be found in the work of any Elizabethan poet with a sufficient body of work. Sobran is also impressed by “the classical myths both Oxford and Shakespeare refer to in similar phrases,” seemingly unaware that these classical myths were intimately familiar to any educated Elizabethan, and that conventions and cliches abounded for referring to these myths in poetry. And so on and so forth.
In fact, I found Sobran’s triumphant pronouncements about the amazing parallels between Oxford and Shakespeare eerily familiar, because I had read almost the same words before — in the writings of those who claim that Francis Bacon or Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare’s plays. Among Baconians, Ignatius Donnelly devoted nearly 200 pages of his 1888 work The Great Cryptogram to “Identical Expressions, Metaphors, Opinions, Quotations, Studies, Errors, Unusual Words, Characters, and Styles” between the works of Bacon and Shakespeare. Robert Theobald’s 500-page Shakespeare Studies in Baconian Light was largely devoted to listing such parallelisms, and many other Baconian works over the years contributed to such lists. Calvin Hoffman spent years compiling a list of parallels between Marlowe and Shakespeare, and in 1956 he finally published thirty pages of such parallels in his book The Murder of the Man Who Was Shakespeare. Accompanying them are such statements as these: “From the almost unlimited parallelisms that I have drawn from the works of Marlowe and Shakespeare, the verdict must be that the plays and poems of these two authors were written by the same author”; “There is only one reason for this literary twinning. One mind conceived the plays and poems of William Shakespeare and those of Christopher Marlowe.”
The wary reader might conclude from the above that unsystematic lists of parallels should only be used with extreme caution in attribution studies, and that wary reader would be right. Samuel Schoenbaum’s Internal Evidence and Elizabethan Dramatic Authorship provides an excellent overview of the use and abuse of evidence from parallelisms, which have been used over the last few centuries to “prove” all sorts of contradictory conclusions about the authorship of Elizabethan works. Yet Sobran seems blissfully unaware of such cautionary tales, confidently declaring that “such parallels are the best possible evidence of Oxford’s authorship of the Shakespeare works… They are the literary equivalent of fingerprints or DNA evidence which may connect a suspect with a crime beyond any reasonable doubt.” This confidence is misplaced, as I have shown above; while verbal parallels are not completely without value if they are used judiciously and with a knowledge of the conventions of Elizabethan writing (qualities generally lacking in Sobran’s article), even then their primary value is as a supplement to more systematic and sophisticated methods of investigating authorship.
In fact, whenever scholars have used such systematic methods to compare Oxford’s writings to Shakespeare’s, they have found no significant similarities but many very significant differences. Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza compared the work of several dozen Elizabethan poets (including Oxford) to Shakespeare, using both conventional poetic tests and a computer-aided method of comparing vocabulary patterns called “modal analysis.” Elliot and Valenza found that none of the poets they tested matched Shakespeare very well, and that Oxford was particularly distant, ranking 22nd out of the 26 poets tested by modal analysis. More recently, Donald Foster has gathered a huge database of Elizabethan English texts by dozens of different authors, which can be used to systematically compare the vocabularies of Shakespeare and other writers. Oxford’s vocabulary, it turns out, is a distinctly poor match for Shakespeare’s when compared with other writers of the era. And finally, Alan Nelson has examined and transcribed all of Oxford’s surviving letters and memoranda, and he has found that Oxford’s idiosyncrasies of spelling and usage bear no resemblance to the idiosyncrasies which can be tentatively reconstructed from the earliest texts of Shakespeare’s works. (In contrast, both the Funeral Elegy and Hand D of Sir Thomas More — neither of which could have been written by Oxford — consistently show all of Shakespeare’s idiosyncrasies.)
Sobran provocatively writes, “I challenge anyone to find so many close parallels of phrase, image, rhythm, and thought between two poets in all literature.” As I have noted above, the types of parallels to Shakespeare which Sobran puts forth can be found in similar quantity for virtually any poet of the time (even such a relatively minor poet as Dyer). But there are some writers who exhibit more similarities to Shakespeare than usual, either because they influenced Shakespeare or were influenced by him. Samuel Daniel has been recognized for the last 200 years as one of the most pervasive influences on Shakespeare’s writing, particularly in the Sonnets but extending throughout the canon. Shakespeare repeatedly appropriated Daniel’s vocabulary, images, themes (compare Shakespeare’s Sonnets 1-18 with sonnets 33-40 of Daniel’s Delia), and even unusual grammatical constructions (such as the pattern “so [verb or adjective] as [adverbial modifier],” which is uncommon outside Shakespeare and Daniel). The parallels between Daniel and Shakespeare are much more extensive than those Sobran notes between Oxford and Shakespeare, and extend far deeper than superficial verbal parallels. On the other hand, John Ford is a contemporary poet who borrowed extensively from Shakespeare: Ford’s work, especially his nondramatic poetry, contains persistent thematic and verbal echoes of Shakespeare (particularly the Sonnets), much more extensive than those Sobran notes for Oxford.
All in all, Sobran’s attempt to use verbal parallels to “prove” that Oxford was Shakespeare is an ill-conceived failure, one which reveals more about Sobran’s ignorance of Elizabethan poetry and attribution methods than it does about Oxford or Shakespeare. Sobran’s seriously defective methodology could be used to “prove” that virtually any Elizabethan poet wrote Shakespeare’s work, and the hubris with which he trumpets his results is embarrassing to anyone with a basic knowledge of the poetry of Shakespeare’s contemporaries. Oxfordians in search of evidence to support their claims will have to look somewhere other than Oxford’s poetry.
Back to Shakespeare Authorship home page
The Queens Men
Posted on December 2, 2018 by Royal Rosamond Press
Like a jigsaw puzzle, my divine intuition, is being pieced together. I propose a series or movie based upon England’s Master Spy, Francis Walsingham, who put together a acting troupe called Queen Elizabeth’s Men. This troupe, and actors, were employed as spys. Here is the genesis of Ina Fleming’s James Bond. Frances built up England’s navy to defeat Catholics wherever he found them. My Bond movie ‘The Royal Janitor’ has been empowered! Sir Ian Easton headed the Royal College of Defence Studies. Rena Easton has memorized a million poems. Victoria Bond and Miriam Rose Christling, are Clown Spys. Consider Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor and the actors she married. It all comes together in Sir Francis Walsingham. I title the movie-series……..
The Queens Clowns
I am amused by Lara Roozemond snubbing me. I suspect the Kesey Square Klowns, Alley and Belle, are behind this. There is a set of laws that govern roving actors and vagabonds. Now that it is proven I am kin to Shakespeare, my usurpers have been boxed and tamed!
I will name my new digs in Boston…….
The Walsingham House
My objective is to make the preferred language of Russia and Saudi Arabia – English! Give me a high-five!
President: Royal Rosamond Press
Queen Elizabeth’s Men was a playing company or troupe of actors in English Renaissance theatre. Formed in 1583 at the express command of Queen Elizabeth, it was the dominant acting company for the rest of the 1580s, as the Admiral’s Men and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men would be in the decade that followed.
Richard Tarleton, the company’s principal comic actor and main star
Since the Queen instigated the formation of the company, its inauguration is well documented by Elizabethan standards. The order came down on 10 March 1583 (new style) to Edmund Tilney, then the Master of the Revels; though Sir Francis Walsingham, head of intelligence operations for the Elizabethan court, was the official assigned to assemble the personnel. At that time the Earl of Sussex, who had been the court official in charge of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men in its first Elizabethan incorporation, was nearing death. The Queen’s Men assumed the same functional role in the Elizabethan theatrical landscape as the Lord Chamberlain’s Men before and after them did: it was the company most directly responsible for providing entertainment at court (although other companies also performed before the Queen).
The task of convening the new troupe apparently needed Walsingham’s strong arm, since it was assembled by raiding the best performers from the companies existing at the time. But it also signaled a new awareness on behalf of the Queen and the privy council of the potential for combining theatrical and espionage activities, since players frequently traveled, both nationally and internationally, and could serve the crown in multiple ways, including the collection of information useful to Walsingham’s spy network. Leicester’s Men, till then the leading company of the day, lost three to the new assemblage (Robert Wilson, John Laneham, and William Johnson), while Oxford’s troupe lost both of its leading men, the brothers John and Laurence Dutton; Sussex’s Men were pillaged of leader John Adams and star clown Richard Tarlton. Other prominent members of the new company were John Singer, William Knell and the “inimitable” John Bentley. Tarlton quickly became the star of the Queen’s Men – “for a wondrous plentiful pleasant extemporal wit, he was the wonder of his time.”
It has been proposed that Elizabeth had a specific political motive behind the formation of the company. Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford were using their companies of players to compete for attention and prestige at each year’s Christmas festivities at Court; Elizabeth and her councillors apparently judged the competition, and the noblemen’s egos, to be getting out of hand. By culling the best players in their troupes to form her own, she slapped down ambitious aristocrats and asserted her own priority.
Their genesis made Queen Elizabeth’s Men unique among the acting companies of the age: “The Queen’s Men were a deliberately political company in origin, and their repertory appears to have followed the path no doubt pointed out for them by Sir Francis Walsingham.” In the plays they acted, “one finds no conflict or disturbance that is not settled in the interests of Tudor conservatism.” The political controversies that marked later companies and plays – The Isle of Dogs, The Isle of Gulls, and others – did not occur with the Queen’s Men. They may, however, have run afoul of higher authorities in 1589, shortly before their dissolution, for involving themselves too vigorously in the Martin Marprelate episode by parodying Martin on the public stage.
The Queen’s company was officially authorized to play at two locations in London, the Bel Savage Inn on Ludgate Hill, and the Bell Inn in Gracechurch Street, within the City near Bishopsgate in the western wall. The former was a large open-air venue, but the latter may have been enclosed. With this arrangement, Queen Elizabeth’s Men may have anticipated the dual summer and winter playing sites that the King’s Men achieved only a quarter-century later with the Globe and Blackfriars Theatres.
Who Wrote Shakepeare’s Plays?
Posted on December 2, 2018 by Royal Rosamond Press
The name Rosamond will forever be associated with the search for the person who authored Shakespeare’s work. After taking a DNA test for Ancestry.com, it is proven one of my great grandmothers is Abigail Shakespeare Webb. One of my grandfathers is Lewis Clifford who is related to Joan Rosamond Clifford, who Samuel Daniel wrote a poem about and dedicated to Mary Sydney Countess of Pembroke who is kin to the Dudley family, who I suspect were instructed by Queen Elizabeth to create a English Literary Society to counter Charle’s Quint to make the world speak Spanish. Elizabeth was the first Protestant Queen. Charles was the King of the Roman Catholics.
This is entirely my theory. I suspect this was the idea of John Dee. Wilton House became the home of Bards and Muses who were Agents of the English Language for Her Royal Majesty. It is here that many of the candidates for authorship of Shakespeare’s work, met, and work, and conspired, to………….overcome the world with the English Language.
The are eighty-six million English Speakers in India. I am kin to Ian Flaming via Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor, who married several famous actors that my DNA test has connected to Abigail Shakespeare.
I am in need of a huge grant! I need to move Royal Rosamond Press to a safe spot. I am forced to publish the core of long study due to the threats on my life. For years I have owned the fear that the closer I got to the truth, the sooner I will arrive at my Ambush.
I see my death at the hands of a five hundred pound superstitious low-life moron, who will sneak up behind me and hit me with the gnarly club. Lying unconscious on the ground, she will then sit on my face, like an egg, and smother me to death. And, so it goes.
I will no longer be called “demented” and insane. I will forever be known as an egghead eccentric who promoted Shakespeare Theories, as is his DNA Right! The Wilton House Bards would be amused by my vision of my death. Shakespeare would love to direct………
‘The Taming of The Hippo’
I am the thrower of the dart that Ben Johnson speaks of. I suspect Mary and her brother compiled the bulk of the work attributed to Shakespeare because of their knowledge of the Bible, and their Psalms. But, it was Mary who applied the finishing touches. She appears to have been a Genius. Like her mother, she was an Alchemist. John Dee is lurking about.
Mary was married to William Herbert who founded ‘The Pembroke Men’ an acting troupe that toured at the time of Shakespeare’s troupe. Why didn’t the merge? I believe they were born of the same source at Wilton House. I see Mary as a super Editor with a photographic memory like Rena. She was a human dictionary and Wikipedia. But most importantly, she introduced the Feminine Touch, kept it alive in these plays. Samuel Daniel is auditioning, he dedicating poems about women to Mary. He has to be aware the Literary Consortium that may be producing plays to fund the Wilton House Society that has close ties to English Royalty.
I want to found a Shakespeare Wilton House in Boston. I seem to have a mind like Mary Sydney’s. Other scholars can come work along side the Bard’s DNA.
Underneath this sable hearse,
Lies the subject of all verse,
Sidney’s sister, Pembroke’s mother.
Death, ere thou hast slain another
Fair and learned and good as she,
Time shall throw a dart at thee.
Shakespeare’s authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century, when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread. Shakespeare’s biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius, arousing suspicion that Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him. The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature, and more than 80 authorship candidates have been proposed, the most popular being Sir Francis Bacon; Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford; Christopher Marlowe; and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby.
The Earl of Pembroke’s Men was an Elizabethan era playing company, or troupe of actors, in English Renaissance theatre. They functioned under the patronage of Henry Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. Early and equivocal mentions of a Pembroke’s company reach as far back as 1575; but the company is known for certain to have been in existence in 1592. In that year, a share in the company was valued at £80 (more than William Shakespeare would pay for New Place in Stratford-upon-Avon five years later).
Mary Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (née Sidney; 27 October 1561 – 25 September 1621) was one of the first English women to achieve a major reputation for her poetry and literary patronage. By the age of 39, she was listed with her brother Philip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, and William Shakespeare, as one of the notable authors of her time in the verse miscellany by John Bodenham, Belvedere. The influence of her Antonius is widely recognized: it stimulated a revived interest in the soliloquy based on classical models, and was a likely source (among others) for both the 1594 closet drama Cleopatra by Samuel Daniel and Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra (1607). Sidney was also known for her translation of Petrarch‘s “Triumph of Death” (from Triumphs), but it is her lyric translation of the Psalms that has secured her poetic reputation.
Lady of the Masque
Posted on August 29, 2012by Royal Rosamond Press
Lady Anne Clifford is kin to Rosamond Clifford. These are two of my favorite characters in history. Lady Clifford was a patron of the arts and literature and held a salon. Her tutor was Samuel Daniel who authored ‘The Complaint of Rosamond’. Lady Anne took part in Masques that influenced Shakespeare. There are over a 150 plays, poems, songs, and novels written about Rosamond Clifford. I must count the number of paintings that bring back to life ‘The Rose and Muse of the World’.Jessie and Susan Benton held a salon in San Francisco and Paris. Many famous authors attended these salons. As an Art Historian I have spent thousands of hours putting together a enduring bouquet that will last forever, will never lose its fragrance. I am the Phantom of this Rosy Opera! This blog is my Masterpiece! Enjoy!
President: Royal Rosamond Press
Rena Easton and Fair Rosamond
Posted on February 18, 2014by Royal Rosamond Press
Your destiny awaits you! I believe it is your fate to recite Samuel Daniel’s ‘Complaint of Fair Rosamond’ on a British stage. In researching the Rosamond family name I came to gaze upon a original copy of Daniel’s poem at the Knight Library. Another book said there are over 160 poems and stories written about Rosamond. I already had so much to do, then author a book on this historic person. In several blogs I express a desire to use you as a model for my portrait of King Henry’s paramour.
It has come to light that Daniel’s sister, Rosa Daniel was the Muse for the English poet, Edmund Spenser, who may have changed the name Rosa, to, Roselinde. Edmund and Samuel were good friends. The question now, is, was Rosa the Muse for her brother? Daniel and Rosa had a gifted brother who was smitten by a Muse.
Rena, if you read the post on my abusive father, then you understand we had the same father. The world wants to see us both emerge from the darkness we were born into, and turn that darkness into a banner of light others can follow. I suggest we do a collaboration. I can do the stage design and several large portraits. We can apply for a grant.
Samuel also put to prose the history of the War of the Roses. There is a lot of interest in this rosy war at the moment due to the Game of Thrones. To see a woman come on stage and recite this history in old English (if you prefer) would be a work of art, especially when you look at Rosamond’s influence on the Plantagenets. You can literally take command of the Stage of History and revive the work of a contemporary of Shakespeare that most people never heard of.
This offer is the end of my autobiography. I beg you to take up the gauntlet and do what your late husband and your children would want you to do. If you turn me down, then you can give your reason why. I am done with being the Scapegoat to women who are too wounded to face their real abuser and rise from the ashes of despair. You can make the end of my story – a true miracle! You are the author of the last chapter!
Charles was born in 1500 as the eldest son of Philip the Handsome and Joanna of Castile in the Flemish city of Ghent, which was part of the Habsburg Netherlands. The culture and courtly life of the Burgundian Low Countries were an important influence in his early life. He was tutored by William de Croÿ (who would later become his first prime minister), and also by Adrian of Utrecht (later Pope Adrian VI). It is said that Charles spoke several vernacular languages: he was fluent in French and Dutch, later adding an acceptable Castilian Spanish (which Charles called the “divine language”) required by the Castilian Cortes Generales as a condition for becoming King of Castile. He also gained a decent command of German (in which he was not fluent prior to his election), though he never spoke it as well as French.
He was first encouraged and, by his own account, taught in verse, by the Countess of Pembroke, whose honour he was never weary of proclaiming. He had entered her household as tutor to her son, Lord Herbert. His first known work, a translation of Paulus Jovius, to which some original matter is appended, was printed in 1585.
His first known volume of verse is dated 1592; it contains the cycle of sonnets addressed to “Delia” and a romance called The Complaint of Rosamond. Twenty-seven of the sonnets had already been printed at the end of Sir Philip Sidney‘s Astrophel and Stella without the author’s consent. Several editions of Delia appeared in 1592, and they were very frequently reprinted during Daniel’s lifetime. Dedicated to “The Right Honourable the Lady Mary Countess of Pembroke”, we learn that Delia lived on the banks of the River Avon—not Shakespeare’s, but the one which flowed through “where Delia has her seat” at Wilton in Wiltshire—and that the sonnets to her were inspired by her memory when the poet was in Italy. To an edition of Delia and Rosamond, in 1594, was added the tragedy of Cleopatra, written in classical style, in alternately rhyming heroic verse, with choral interludes. The First Four Books of the Civil Wars, a historical poem on the subject of the Wars of the Roses, in ottava rima, appeared in 1595.
As far as is known, it was not until 1599 that there was published a volume entitled Poetical Essays, which contained, besides the “Civil Wars,” “Musophilus” and “A letter from Octavia to Marcus Antonius,” poems in Daniel’s finest and most mature manner. About this time he became tutor to Lady Anne Clifford, daughter of the Margaret Clifford, Countess of Cumberland. On the death of Edmund Spenser, in the same year, Daniel received the somewhat vague office of Poet Laureate, which he seems, however to have shortly resigned in favour of Ben Jonson. At about this time, and at the recommendation of his brother-in-law, Giovanni Florio, he was taken into favour at court and wrote a Panegyricke Congratulatorie in ottava rima which he offered to King James I of England at Burleigh Harrington in Rutland during James’ initial progression from Edinburgh to claim the throne in London.
The Crollalanza theory seems to have been first set out in Santi Paladino‘s 1929 pamphlet Shakespeare sarebbe il pseudonimo di un poeta italiano (“Shakespeare would be the pen name of an Italian poet”). In the early versions Crollalanza was said to be from a Calvinist family in Valchiavenna or nearby Valtellina in Northern Italy.
The literary scholars Dame Frances Yates and Keir Elam believe that Paladino initially confused the Elizabethan linguist John Florio with his Italian-born father Michelangelo Florio. However, according to Keir Elam, in the 1950s Paladino decided that Shakespeare was in fact Michelangelo Florio, the father of John Florio, and that the father and son collaborated on the plays, with John Florio improving his father’s English—making the Crollalanza theory, at this stage, a version of the John Florio authorship theory. Elam also remarks that “Italian, or perhaps Sicilian nationalism” gave rise to this theory.
Robert Dudley was the fifth son of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, and his wife Jane, daughter of Sir Edward Guildford. John and Jane Dudley had 13 children in all and were known for their happy family life. Among the siblings’ tutors figured John Dee, Thomas Wilson, and Roger Ascham. Roger Ascham believed that Robert Dudley possessed a rare talent for languages and writing, regretting that his pupil had done himself harm by preferring mathematics. Robert learned the craft of the courtier at the courts of Henry VIII, and especially Edward VI, among whose companions he served.[9
Mary Dudley was the eldest daughter among the 13 children of John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland and his wife Jane Guildford. Mary Dudley was well-educated. Fluent in Italian, French, and Latin, she was interested in alchemy, romances, and writing poetry. Her copy of Edward Hall‘s Chronicles bears her annotations in French. She also became a friend, correspondent and frequent visitor of the scientist and magus John Dee.
On 29 March 1551 Mary Dudley married Henry Sidney at Esher, Surrey. Possibly a love match, the ceremony was repeated in public on 17 May 1551 at her parents’ house Ely Place, London. Four months later Henry Sidney became Chief Gentleman of Edward VI‘s Privy Chamber; he was knighted by the young King on the day his father-in-law, who headed the government, was raised to the dukedom of Northumberland.
Mary Sidney was born on 27 October 1561 at Tickenhill Palace in the parish of Bewdley in Worcestershire. She was one of the four daughters of Sir Henry Sidney by his wife Mary Dudley, a daughter of John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland. Her brother was the poet Philip Sidney (1554–1586).
As a child she spent much time at court, where her mother was a Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber and a close confidante of Queen Elizabeth I. Like her brother Philip, she received a humanist education which included classical languages, French, Italian, music and needlework. Following the death of Mary’s youngest sister, Ambrosia, in 1575, the queen requested Mary to return to court to join the royal entourage.
Marriage and progeny
Arms of Herbert: Per pale azure and gules, three lions rampant argent
In 1577 Mary’s uncle Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester helped her father to arrange her marriage to their close ally, Henry Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke (d.1600). As Countess of Pembroke, Mary was responsible for a number of estates including Ramsbury, Ivychurch (Alderbury, Wilts), Wilton House and Baynard’s Castle in the City of London, where it is known that they entertained Queen Elizabeth to dinner. She bore her husband four children:
- William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke (1580–1630), eldest son and heir;
- Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke (born 1584), who succeeded his brother in 1630. These brothers are the “Incomparable Pair” to whom Shakespeare‘s First Folio is dedicated.
- Katherine Herbert (1581–1584);
- Anne Herbert (born 1583- after 1603);
Life and work
The title page of Sidney’s The Tragedy of Antony, her interpretation of the story of Mark Antony and Cleopatra.
Mary Sidney turned Wilton House into a “paradise for poets”, known as the “Wilton Circle” which included Spenser, Daniel, Michael Drayton, Ben Jonson and Sir John Davies, a salon-type literary group sustained by the Countess’s hospitality. John Aubrey wrote that “Wilton House was like a college, there were so many and ingenious persons. She was the greatest patroness of wit and learning of any lady in her time”. She received more dedications than any other woman of non-royal status. She was regarded as a muse by Daniel in his poem “Delia” (an anagram for ideal).