An argument for less heat on the topic of Prince Tudor
by Linda Theil
If the universe of Shakespeare lovers may be roughly divided between those who accept the Stratfordian attribution of authorship and those who do not, those anti-Strats who favor Edward De Vere (Oxford 17) as author may be similarly divided between those who proclaim the Prince Tudor (PT) variation on the Oxfordian theme and those who despise Prince Tudorites. In fact, a heated conversation between Oxfordians of opposing PT persuasions often uses the same terms of non-endearment heard between Strats and anti-Strats.
Roland Emmerich’s 2011 film, Anonymous -- based as it was on PT theory – and increased interest in the Shakespeare authorship question fueled by easy access to information on the Internet have stoked the fires of PT enmity, leading to unrest in the Oxfordian realm.
The PT story as delineated in the nineteen-thirties and generally as presented in Anonymous says that Oxford 17 and Elizabeth 1 bore a son who was Henry Wriosley, Southampton 3 and -- according to the PT thesis -- heir to the English throne. I personally do not find this story at all compelling as a rationale for Shakespeare’s pseudonymity or as historical narrative, but I believe that non-PT anti-Strats, like me, would do well to consider a less adversarial response to PT theorists for the following reasons:
- It's not necessary that all anti-Strats follow a unified theory of authorship
- It's not possible that all anti-Strats follow a unified theory of authorship.
- It doesn't matter if Stratfordians think PT is ridiculous, because nothing is more ridiculous than Stratfordian theory.