The Holder of this blog uses no cookies and collects no data whatsoever. He is only a guest on the Blogger platform. He has made no agreements concerning third party data collection and is not provided the opportunity to know the data collection policies of any of the standard blogging applications associated with the host platform. For information regarding the data collection policies of Facebook applications used on this blog contact Facebook. For information about the practices regarding data collection on the part of the owner of the Blogger platform contact Google Blogger.

Monday, February 13, 2023

Earl of Pembroke to the Earl Of Shrewsbury. October 16, 1604.

William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, and Susan de Vere
In this series:
Here we have a letter from William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, announcing the affiance of his brother, Philip, to Lady Susan De Vere, daughter of the 17th Earl of Oxford. Pembroke himself had once been promised Oxford's daughter, Bridget, until it proved impossible to come to an agreement on the marriage contract.

During these early years, James I was particularly generous with his affections and gifts to many young noblemen. Philip had quickly become a particular favorite, presumably because he was a constant and enthusiastic hunting companion. During July of the year, he had been awarded the Order of the Bath. James was said to feel toward him like another son.

Susan de Vere, daughter of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was also in attendance at Court. In early December of 1603, she was one of a small number of English ladies invited by the French ambassador to an ambassadorial dinner.1 On January 8, 1604 she and her sister, Elizabeth, the Countess of Derby, were each one of 11 of the Queen's ladies2 to appear in Samuel Daniel's masque Vision of the Twelve Goddesses.

Upon the death of Elizabeth, their father had applied for the ancient rights of the Earls of Oxford, in their office of Lord Great Chamberlain, regarding the Coronation ceremonies of the new king. His requests were entirely approved. It had been many years since the old Earl had a request approved by an English monarch. This had been followed by a request for the earldom's ancient rights of keepership of Havering Park and Waltham Forest. This, too, was approved (with one small carve-out). The change in Edward's circumstances had to feel liberating. He might well hope for more and better.

Whether Oxford personally attended upon King James during the days surrounding the coronation, or one or more stand-ins for him, would not seem to be a matter of record. The Earl's health had long been in decline. Like Prospero, in his Epilogue to The Tempest, he well might say:

Now my charmes are all ore-throwne,

And what strength I hav is mine owne

Which is most faint

He died in June of 1604. So then, he was alive to observe the “long love, and many changes” of Philip and Susan and the very beginning of the change in all their circumstances that came with the ascension of James.

The question would also seem to be unanswered as to whether Edward attended the Christmas festivities celebrated that first year at Hampton Court. There can be little doubt that he would attend if his health permitted. He was in some degree favored by the new monarch. His heirs' prospects might well be enhanced by his making an appearance. Surely, he remembered his youth as a courtier as an exciting time filled with pleasure and promise.



No. XXXVIII.

(Talbot Papers, Vol. K. fol. 225.)

THE EARL OF PEMBROKE

TO THE EARL OF SHREWSBURY. 1604.


My Lord,

Though I had no direct messenger to send unto your Lordship, I rather chose to write by post than leave you unadvertised of that which is as joyful unto me as any thing that ever fell out since my birth; I cannot now write unto you all the circumstances, but at my coming down, your Lordship shall know as much as myself. The matter in brief is that, after long love, and many changes, my brother on Friday last was privately contracted to my Lady Susan, without the knowledge of any of his or her friends. On Saturday she acquainted her uncle with it, and he me. My Lord of Cranborne seemed to be much troubled at it at first, but yesterday the King, taking the whole matter on himself, made peace on all sides. It is so pleasing a thing to me that I could not but strive to give your Lordship the first notice of it myself, which now having performed, I beseech your Lordship to pardon my brevity, and impute it to the many businesses this accident hath laid upon me. At my coming down I will make your Lordship a large relation of all that hath passed in our world, though very little worthy the note; till which time, wishing your Lordship all the happiness this earth can afford, I rest your Lordship's most affectionate son to serve you,

Pembroke.


Hampton Court, this 16th of October [1604].


To the right honourable my very good Lord the

Earl of Shrewsbury.


Source: Lodge, Edmund. Illustrations of British History, Biography, and Manners, in the Reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, & James I, III.100-1


1 Law, Ernest. A Royall Masque by Samuel Daniel. Presented Upon Sunday Night, Being the Eight Of January, 1604, In The Greate Hall At Hampton Court,... (1880). 8.

2   Law. 43. “The first three Goddesses were Juno, Pallas, and Venus, the characters being represented respectively by Lady Suffolk, the Queen, and Lady Rich. The next three were Diana, Vesta, and Proserpine, represented by Lady Hertford, Lady Bedford, and Lady Derby. The next were Macaria, Concordia, and Astrasa, by Lady Hatton, Lady Nottingham, and Lady Walsingham. And lastly, Flora, Ceres, and Tethys, by Lady Susan Vere, Lady Dorothy Hastings, and Lady Elizabeth Howard.


Also at Virtual Grub Street:



4 comments:

P. Buchan said...

I know you're working hard to put your theory on a scholarly footing, so I hope you accept this critique in that spirit. You really need to provide far more footnotes for factual statements.

For instance, you say "James was said to feel toward him like another son." Who said this? Was this a contemporary statement by someone with firsthand knowledge of the relationship between the king and Philip Herbert, or was this an conclusion some later person came to, based on unspecified primary sources? When you say that their closeness is "presumably because he was a constant and enthusiastic hunting companion," is there evidence you base this presumption on, or is it more of a guess?

Might the relationship between the two have been a sexual relationship, as is alleged between James and George Villiers? Sir Dudley Carleton said that on the morning after the wedding, "the King, in his shirt and night-gown, gave them a reveille matin before they were up, and spent a good time in or upon the bed; chuse which you will believe." That doesn't sound like James felt toward Philip like another son, or at least I hope it doesn't. Can you provide a citation for the source for the statement about James?

You also state: "Upon the death of Elizabeth, their father had applied for the ancient rights of the Earls of Oxford, in their office of Lord Great Chamberlain, regarding the Coronation ceremonies of the new king." I'm sure you're correct here, but I'd like to see a citation to the supporting evidence, that gives context to the action.

It's fun when you say "he might well say." It's one of the wonderful things about Shakespeare's works: they express emotions that are universal, that everyone can apply to their own lives, as they have from the highest to the lowest in society, for the last four centuries.

You most likely are correct that Oxford was alive during the "long love" between Susan and Philip. We don't know exactly when their relationship began, but the description certainly reasonably suggests their relationship was longer than the four months between Oxford's death and Pembroke's letter.

But what evidence is there that Oxford had any awareness of his daughter's romance and impending betrothal? Pembroke's letter suggests that Susan's custodial guardian, Robert Cecil, didn't know about the relationship until months after Oxford's death: "On Saturday she acquainted her uncle with it, and he me. My Lord of Cranborne seemed to be much troubled at it at first . . ." You're assuming that Oxford was more in touch with his daughter's affairs than her guardian. Do you have evidence supporting this, or is it a guess (or wishful thinking?)

Finally, you say, regarding Oxford's possible attendance at court for the 1603 yuletide festivities, that "there can be little doubt that he would attend if his health permitted." That's not evidence. The court was held in Hampton Court due to the plague. The goal was to reduce the exposure of the new sovereign to people who might be infected, wasn't it? I doubt that there was an open invitation to every nobleman who could make the journey to make their way to the court. Oxford largely disappears from the historical record after 1602. It's impossible to say very much about his actions after that point. I appreciate your desire to fill in gaps in the record, but you really need some kind of evidence beyond what you imagine nobody can doubt. For example, you could find evidence that showed that the yuletide festivities were open to any nobleman who could make the journey. Is there a list of nobles in attendance?

Bottom line is that the two footnotes you provide, useful as they are, just highlights how many factual claims you make in the course of the essay that aren't sourced. This is why I keep rattling on about evidence.

P. Buchan said...

Still hoping for you to answer the very reasonable questions I posed above. On rereading I noticed particularly that you deployed the passive voice when the active voice would be preferred:
"Pembroke himself had once been promised Oxford's daughter, Bridget, until it proved impossible to come to an agreement on the marriage contract."
Certainly it was impossible, because seventeen year old William turned down the offered dowry for thirteen year old Bridget. Some Oxfordians try to spin the proposed match as if it suggested William and Bridget had a relationship that would lead to him wanting to publish Bridget and Susan's father's plays, but there's little evidence that Oxford wrote any plays. Wouldn't it be better to lay out the evidence and the inferences you think should reasonably be drawn from it?

Gilbert Wesley Purdy said...

You will have to wait until you can make your comments on Fb, Philip. I don't have time to comment both here and there.

P. Buchan said...

Just to be clear, you're saying that rather than comment on this article here, where anyone on the web interested in your claim might see your article and my questions about it, you want me to submit my comments on a Facebook post?

It appears that you have more than one post on Facebook linked to this blog post, the older of which (From Feb 14) included the first comment I made above. It's your choice to have several different places where readers can access your interpretation of your research, but to me it seems most logical for my comments to be attached to the article I'm reacting to, rather than to a Facebook post you're using to alert your Facebook group members of a blog entry that may be repeated (without the comments) a few months later.

Would you prefer I submit my comment on the Feb 14 facebook post, or the one from Sept 26, or both?