Edward did, in fact, kill a servant of the Cecil
household. According to the official
inquest, the 17 year old Earl was fencing in a courtyard at Cecil’s London
residence, on July 23, 1567, with a local tailor, when he killed an under-cook, who
happened to be in the area, by running him through the thigh with his foil.
In Anonymous, Cecil arranges for a finding of “self-defense”. While the director placed the servant behind a curtain in order to evoke the scene from Hamlet (a popular conflation among those of us who understand Oxford to have written the plays of Shakespeare) and to add to the film's attractions for its key demographic, the historical inaccuracy of a finding of “self-defense” is less explicable. Cecil actually arranged for a finding of “suicide”. The under-cook, it was said, had been drunk and thrown himself on the sword. It is not clear why the scriptwriter was either unaware of the actual finding or dissuaded from including it.
In Anonymous, Cecil arranges for a finding of “self-defense”. While the director placed the servant behind a curtain in order to evoke the scene from Hamlet (a popular conflation among those of us who understand Oxford to have written the plays of Shakespeare) and to add to the film's attractions for its key demographic, the historical inaccuracy of a finding of “self-defense” is less explicable. Cecil actually arranged for a finding of “suicide”. The under-cook, it was said, had been drunk and thrown himself on the sword. It is not clear why the scriptwriter was either unaware of the actual finding or dissuaded from including it.
Far more problematic still, in the film the evil Cecil (also
a popular characterization among Oxfordians) blackmails Edward. The Earl will receive a verdict of
self-defense if he will agree to marry Cecil’s daughter Anne. In this way, Cecil, a commoner at the time, will
associate his family with the wealth and power of a senior Earldom. The alternative is a guilty verdict and “the
ax” (beheading).
To begin with, the laws pertaining to royal wards at the
time were perfectly clear that the guardian had the right to marry the ward to
whomever he chose including his own daughter.
The ward had no legal say in the matter.
Cecil did not need to blackmail Oxford.
He was at liberty to force the marriage, with perfect impunity, as so
many guardians had done and would continue to do.
History is clear that Edward de Vere did indeed marry Anne
Cecil, 4 ½ years later, in December of 1571.
Cecil had an embarrassing letter to write as a result. By all appearances, he had not ordered Edward
to marry his daughter or anyone else for that matter, regardless that a
guardian stood to make large sums for such arranged marriages. He had nearly closed a marriage contract
between Anne and the heir to the Earldom of Rutland. A
letter was dispatched apologizing profusely for the sudden turn of events. In it he declared of Edward that “I
love hym so derely from my hart as I do myn own sonne,” and, Edward being
reputed to be a bit of an empty headed fop, “ther is much more in hym of understandyng than any
stranger to hym wold think.”
Cecil
would hardly have forgotten that he’d already arranged for Anne via an earlier blackmail. He was, above all things, a man who never lost
track of the play of the game. At the
very least, he quite properly considered that an Earl in the hand is worth two
in the bush.
- Check out the English Renaissance Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
.jpg)
1 comment:
I agree entirely with this. I don't see any evidence that William Cecil used his office as Master of Queen's Wards to marry his daughters or granddaughters to any of the wards in his charge.
That's not to say he didn't use his power and influence with the Queen to pressure (I don't think blackmail is an apt description) Oxford. He used the incident of de Vere's affair with Anne Vavasour to force Oxford to recant his claim that his wife had been unfaithful.
I'm not convinced that Anne de Vere wasn't actually unfaithful -- five years seems a long time for Oxford not to be able to ascertain that their firstborn daughter, Elizabeth, was legitimate, and who would know better than Oxford whether or not he'd had intercourse with his spouse in the appropriate timeframe. I don't think Oxford was stupid, and it would require him to be very stupid indeed to shun his wife for five years if he was merely ignorant that pregnancy would last about nine months.
Cecil had the power to convince the Queen to let Oxford out of the tower, despite his folly of having impregnated one of the Queen's "maids." He may have simply told his son-in-law to drop his attacks on Anne, and get back to his primary marital responsibility as an Earl-- to father an heir. His having fathered a child out of wedlock may have meant that Edward and Anne had both had illicit relations, but Edward needed to move on.
As it turned out, Anne died after bearing two more daughters. Edward's responsibility continued to be to father an heir, and with his second marriage he was successful.
Post a Comment