Edward de Vere in the Lives of his Daughters

There is a perceived lack of documentary evidence, in some quarters, that Edward de Vere continued a relationship with his daughters after Anne Cecil, Countess of Oxford, died, in 1588. This seems a promising line of attack (for those who embrace attack) against the idea that the Herbert brothers ̶ William, Earl of Pembroke, and Philip, Earl of Montgomery ̶ were (at least William) actively associated with the events surrounding the publication of the Shakespeare First Folio.

That Ben Jonson provided (together with Edward Blount) the second rate authors (who never knew the man who wrote the plays) to write the dedicatory poems is hard enough to explain away. That none of the better writers of the day seems, for some reason, to have been contacted in order to lend their better names to the collected plays of the greatest playwright of the age is harder still. That Jonson, who depended heavily upon the Herberts' patronage for his wealth and fame, wrote most or all of the letters in the front matter of the Folio, over the names of John Heminges and Henry Condell (who also depended upon William Herbert, as Lord Chamberlain, for their livings), is so inconvenient that all of history and common law must be rewritten to pabulum in order to avoid various implications.

At least they take some comfort from their belief that De Vere had no demonstrable relationship with his daughter, the Countess of Montgomery, Susan de Vere. His three daughters were taken under the care of Burghley's wife, Mildred, upon the death of their mother, Anne Cecil, Countess of Oxford, in 1588. Shortly afterwards, the lands of the Earldom of Oxford were taken under the control of the Queen, in the person of Burghley, to be protected against further sales in order to pay toward Edward's enormous debts.

Edward continued as the Earl of Oxford with a yearly Royal pension of ₤1,000. The limited lands that were left to him would never be enough to accommodate three daughters in the manner appropriate to daughters of an Earl. The sum of ₤1,000, while a vast amount for most, would require him to scale back considerably for himself alone.

William Cecil, the Baron Burghley, had married his daughter to the Earl of the great house of Oxford in hopes of increasing the wealth and power of his family and their descendants. What offense he and his son, Robert Cecil, and their retainers, may have shown once or twice, in extant documents, was only toward Edward's financial irresponsibility and its effects upon those descendants. His personal behavior, otherwise, was normal enough for an Earl.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Edward acted in at least one matter as his daughter, Elizabeth's, advocate with his father-in-law Baron Burghley.

...at my coming hither from Charing Cross, the Earle of Derby, was very earnest that he might assure a thousand pound a year for my daughter's […] finding [?] adding farther that he marveled that Sir Robert Cecil her uncle & I her father were so slack to call upon it. Wherefore I shall desire your Lordship as you shall choose best time, that something may be done therein, my daughter, has put her trust in me,...¹

As of this letter, she is the Countess of Derby, having married the Earl of Derby on January 26, 1595. A ₤1,000 annual allowance, agreed upon in the marriage contracts, seems to have gone unpaid. We find son-in-law and daughter applying to him for help.

The evidence is strong that Edward was a regular guest at the Derby household. Only there would Derby be in and out, his personal seal and servants immediately at hand.

The Earl of Derby should have set his hand and seal to this copy, as he had done to yours, but his promises, being but delays and shifts, in the mean season, I caused his officer Irland and another to set their hands unto it, to witness that it was a true copy. ²

Surely father and daughter did not only discuss the Baron's delinquency. Or Robert Cecil's delinquency, the Baron having begun his final illness. Happier moments are sure to have transpired between them by the fact that they clearly spent time in each other's company.

Edward continues to pursue this issue at the request of both his daughter and the Earl. Or, perhaps, it was yet another issue — as suggested in British History Online.

I pray you, good Sir Robert Cecil, peruse this, and if it be not as I take it, yet have that care of your niece, that if it be in the hands of Barnardeux it may be sought out. Also, I am most earnestly to desire you, as you are her uncle and nearest to her, next myself, that you will friendly assist her with your good advice. You know her youth and the place wherein she lives, and how much to both our houses it imports that she carry herself according to her honour. Enemies are apt to make the worst of everything, flatterers will do evil offices, and true and faithful advice will seem harsh to tender ears; but sith my fortune hath set me so far off as I cannot be at hand in this her troublesome occasions, I hope you will do the good office of an uncle, and I commit unto you the authority of a parent in mine absence.³

Either way, Edward was involved in Elizabeth's life, attending her wedding, this evidence also strongly suggests, and pressing Burghley and son to meet his obligations in her behalf.

And not only Elizabeth. The Baron Burghley has found sufficient strength, the next year, to write Edward regarding his daughter, Bridget. He would seem to be extended the privileges of a father with neither limit nor acrimony.

I do perceive how both my Lord and Lady do persevere, which doth greatly content me, for Briget's sake, whom always I have wished a good husband such as your Lordship and myself may take comfort by.... Thus to satisfy your Lordship I have as shortly as I can set down my opinion to my Lord's desires,...⁴

That Susan does not appear among the correspondence is explained by the fact that she was only 7 years old when surely she too attended Elizabeth's wedding. Only 10 years old as late as the last letter here; 17 years old on the day her father died.

1 Earl of Oxford to Baron Burghley, August 7, 1595. Virtual Grub Street. https://gilbertwesleypurdy.blogspot.com/2021/06/letters-earl-of-oxford-to-baron_19.html

2Earl of Oxford to Sir Robert Cecil, September 6, 1596. Virtual Grub Streeet https://gilbertwesleypurdy.blogspot.com/2020/11/letters-earl-of-oxford-to-robert-cecil_15.html

3Earl of Oxford to Sir Robert Cecil. September 17, 1596. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-cecil-papers/vol6/pp387-410

4Earl of Oxford to Baron Burghley, September 8, 1597. Virtual Grub Street https://gilbertwesleypurdy.blogspot.com/2020/11/letters-earl-of-oxford-to-baron.html

Also at Virtual Grub Street:

• More on Thomas North as Shakespeare and author of Arden of Feversham. June 14, 2021. “This is also the reason why the title pages included the address of the shop that was selling the book.”
• A 1572 Oxford Letter and the Player’s Speech in Hamlet. August 11, 2020. “The player’s speech has been a source of consternation among Shakespeare scholars for above 200 years.  Why was Aeneas’ tale chosen as the subject?”
• Gutenberg, proto-Hack Writers and Shakespeare. May 26, 2020. “A less well known effect of the Reformation was that many young Catholic men who had taken religious orders in order to receive an education began to lead lives at large from monastic discipline.  Like Erasmus and Rabelais they took up the pen.”
• Shakespeare’s Funeral Meats. May 13, 2020. “Famous as this has been since its discovery, it has been willfully misread more often than not.  No mainstream scholar had any use for a reference to Hamlet years before it was supposed to have been written.”
• Check out the English Renaissance Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
• Check out the Letters Index: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford for many letters from this fascinating time, some related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.