News & Events

Book Review

Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom:
The True History of Shakespeare and Elizabeth.
NY: Grove Press, 2010, 430 pp., $26.00
By Charles Beauclerk

Reviewed by
Christopher Paul

In the light of the current controversy about the emergence of the Prince Tudor theory in the upcoming film, 'Anonymous', the DVS considers it very timely that the noted American Oxfordian researcher, Christopher Paul, has added to his accomplished essay on this topic, THE "PRINCE TUDOR" DILEMMA: Hip Thesis, Hypothesis, or Old Wives’ Tale? for The Oxfordian Volume V 2002, with a review of Charles Beaclerk's recent book.

This review first appeared in Brief Chronicles Vol. 2 (2011), Print Edition, pp. 244-57 and the DVS is delighted that Christopher Paul has asked us to republish it as a pdf in its original form.

Click here to download the article.

Here are the opening three paragraphs:

After briefly reviewing William Shaksper’s literary disqualifications in the preface to Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom (SLK), Charles Beauclerk writes that “[f]or those at court, [Oxford/Shakespeare’s] identity was an open secret” (xv), as was his “true history.” Elaborating on the reason for continued secrecy after 1623, Beauclerk drops the first hint of his central thesis: “Not only were the offspring of statesmen lampooned in Shakespeare’s plays now in positions of power and influence, but the works gave notice of Tudor heirs yet living” (xv). What Beauclerk asks of his readers at the Preface’s end is to “allow Shakespeare to reveal himself to us through his principal themes [e.g., obsession with royal succession, crises of identity mistaken, concealed and lost, etc.], which build up a picture of his psychology” (xviii).

The underlying theme of Beauclerk’s book is based upon two separate Prince Tudor (PT) theories, over which Oxfordians are deeply divided. PT1 posits that the 3rd Earl of Southampton was a changeling begotten by the 17th Earl of Oxford and Queen Elizabeth. PT2 posits that Oxford was a changeling begotten by Princess Elizabeth and Lord Thomas Seymour and incorporates PT1, thereby postulating … well, you do the math. Some PT theorists only believe PT1, others PT2. Still others are adamant that neither theory is correct, and the contention has created a rift that has alienated Oxfordians into opposing camps.

Beauclerk would seem to be more than aptly suited to tell The True History of Shakespeare and Elizabeth, being the Earl of Burford, heir to the dukedom of St Albans, and in particular, “[a] descendant of Edward de Vere.” The latter claim, however, stated in the author’s dust jacket blurb, should be qualified. It is unfortunate that, knowing his history only too well, he plays it so fast and loose. Few of his readers will be deeply knowledgeable about the Tudor era, and those not repulsed with the premise of Oedipal incest are likely to be lured in, ignorant of the devils in the details, and readily possessed by the skillfully written (notwithstanding purple-patched) PT2 narrative.

©2011 Christopher Paul