Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom: The True History of Shakespeare and Elizabeth

by Charles Beauclerk

"Beauclerk's learned, deep scholarship, compelling research, engaging style and convincing interpretation won me completely. He has made me view the whole Elizabethan world afresh. The plays glow with new life, exciting and real, infused with the soul of a man too long denied his inheritance."
- Sir Derek Jacobi
"This is a book for anyone who loves Shakespeare. No matter who you think may have created the works of Shakespeare, the Earl of Oxford's mysterious life, and that of his Queen, must be near the heart and source of the creation. Three cheers for Mr. Beauclerk's daring to explore one of the most scandalous and potentially revolutionary theories about the authorship of these immortal works."
- Mark Rylance
"An intriguing book that proposes another forceful argument in this age old debate. Beauclerk's detailed exploration divides the mythical notions from the historical truths. You will have a hard time putting this book down."
- Roland Emmerich
"An extraordinary and controversial interpretation of Shakespeare's origins, which certainly provokes much thought. A radical analysis of Shakespeare's text, leading to a conclusion which is bound to amaze the reader and the scholar. Who was Shakespeare?
- Steven Berkoff
"A riveting narrative filled with learned insights into Renaissance England, Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom is a soulful meditation on the timeless words of those masterworks at the centre of our cultural heritage."
- Professor James Norwood
"An amazing work of scholarship-so eloquent, yet written in an immediately 'popular' style. I cannot recommend it too highly."
- Tony Palmer
"Beauclerk has not only scandalized professors throughout the English departments of the world's schools and universities, he has thrown down the gauntlet to historians as well... and he has garnered supporters in this long-simmering debate."
- Boston Globe
Who was the man behind Hamlet, Romeo, Falstaff and Lear? And why did he write, 'I, once gone, to all the world must die'?
In this ground-breaking work Charles Beauclerk moves beyond the narrow confines of traditional Shakespearean scholarship to explore the political milieu in which Shakespeare lived and worked and the life-and-death struggle he underwent in the name of his 'cause'. In doing so, he humanizes the bard who for centuries has remained beyond our grasp.
The story revealed is one of betrayal and sacrifice at the heart of government, with Shakespeare forced to fight both for the survival of his works-and his very identity. The official history, that of a barely educated genius writing in isolation and a virginal queen married to her country, is exposed as artful propaganda.
Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom delves deep into the conflicts and personalities of Elizabethan England, and the plays themselves, to cast new light on the greatest and most mysterious artist the world has known.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Shakespeare, Biography

492 pages, Paperback

First published March 30, 2010

Reviews

[alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for a university course on Shakespeare's history plays. One of the topics of discussion was the Shakespeare authorship question.

Well, this was something. While I found the majority of Beauclerk's ideas and conclusions... questionable, to say the least, they were definitely interesting to read about. To be honest, I was actually quite fascinated by some of his interpretations of the plays, Edward de Vere's character, and concepts that could generally be called Shakespearean, but then Beauclerk would decide to play his favorite incest card again. And again. So, this book is definitely one that you read for the argumentation itself, not for the quality of it. 😃

[Jake Maguire · Rating 5 out of 5]

I must confess I was a little apprehensive at first about throwing my hat into the ring with the "Oxfordians" - but I can honestly say that after reading this book, and watching a number of the Shakespeare plays, and reading six other biographies about Shakespeare, I feel comfortable saying the Earl of Oxford was the "Bard". Read this book and everything else out there for that matter and judge for yourself.

[Louise · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's all too much for a weekend read! I'm suffering from overload!

I have long wondered why the man whose very name is sometimes synonymous with "Elizabethan Drama" hardly ever appears in bios of Elizabeth (except for prior to the Essex Rebellion). I had read Beauclerk's wonderful bio of his forbearer: Nell Gwyn: Mistress to a King and looked forward to a similarly fun and delightful read on Shakespearean theater. I thought I'd learn, for instance, which of these plays were actually staged for EI (and her reaction to the portrayal of royalty), a censorship skirmish or two (ten?) and which Globe Theater actors appeared in the court. WOW! I did not a expect forensic psychological case for Shakespearean authorship ... nor royal incest.

I learned that Shakespeare is not in the Elizabeth bios, because it was important to Elizabeth to keep a "natural child" outside the record. The man who "shook his speare" had complex reasons for publishing anonymously.

I've never bought the theory on the man from Stratford, but my inclination was that WS was a pen name for a well connected female who could never get published on her own. This shows how green I was to the identity debate until this book. I've now explored a this more... there are hundreds of web pages on this issue.

Beauclerk has presented a circumstantial, but overwhelming, case that the Earl of Oxford, Edward DeVere was the famous bard. He shows this with some history, but more thoroughly and convincingly through content of the plays and poems. If you accept that an author's characters are a reflection of the self, you can be convinced that Oxford is Shakespeare. If you buy in to the theory that Oxford is the product of the famous Seymour/Elizabeth scissors incident (or like incidents), you can be fully convinced.

A recent book Elizabeth's Women: Friends, Rivals, and Foes Who Shaped the Virgin Queen, details how loyal the women in service to Elizabeth were particularly, during the Seymour trials. It may be that were hiding something more serious than Elizabeth fending off unwanted advances.

Beyond the overwhelming arguments made in the text, are the thousands of words embodied in the plates - a Shakespearean portrait determined by X-ray to be Edward DeVere... the uncanny resemblance of the portraits of both Anne Boleyn and Thomas Seymour to DeVere... the shocking plate of what appears to be a pregnant Elizabeth!

It's a lot to digest, particularly when Beauclerk poses not just one, but three "natural" children of the "Virgin Queen" in her court... plus Anne Boleyn as the child of the husband who put her to death... and then, DeVere's first daughter as not his own, but the result of her grandfather attempting to cement his family's eventual claim to succession.

I would imagine this book has caused a stir among the many Shakespearean scholars. I'll be looking forward to the next round in this debate, and a future, definitive bio of Edward De Vere.

[Samantha · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book posits not just one theory that most scholars would call a 'crackpot theory' (the idea that the Shakespeare was not William of Stratford - more on this later), but is also says that Queen Elizabeth I (yes, that virgin queen) has not just one, but a handful of bastard children (and then went on to have bastard children with her bastard children???), one of whom was SHAKESPEARE. (WHAT???) So yeah. That was a little hard to get past.

Don't get me wrong, I think the question of Shakespearean authorship needs to be looked into more thoroughly. The question is far too taboo considering the appalling lack of evidence in anyone's favour, and it all just screams 'SOMEONE DO MORE RESEARCH!'. But this book used (for much of its backing) the same mythologizing and over-reading-into-the-text that Stratfordians use to 'prove' the Oxfordian theory.

And then there's Queen Elizabeth. Sure, I'll buy that maybe the whole 'virgin queen' shtick was an act, but that she had a crap ton of bastard children running around and no one said anything except semi-criptically through art!?!? Yeah, that's a no for me.

To top it all off, the author is a descendant of Edward De Vere (Earl of Oxford), and through this book, is claiming to be a relative of both Shakespeare and Queen Elizabeth I.

For all that, its written quite well, and manipulates text from the plays and poems with skill. You have to have an open mind going into this book, or it will be a challenge to motivate yourself to take it seriously (and even to pick it up to read). If there had been more in the way of actual evidence, I may have started to believe Beauclerk's claim. But alas, I am still undecided as to who wrote the masterful works of Shakespeare.

(Disclaimer: I took several long breaks where I read other books because I could not deal with this book for long periods on end.)

[Hugh · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wouldn't typically give up on a book once I made it 33% of the way through, but after this sat on my coffee table for 2 months untouched I thought maybe it was time to let it go. This is an absolute mammoth of a read, and very dense in its prose.
It really wants to prove a singular point, and that point is that Shakespeare's real identity wasn't William Shakespeare.
I can tell you it had already convinced me of that 25 pages in and it is over 400 pages long. So if you like books with a lot of repetitive material here you go. Some of the reasoning and evidence he gives for his theories seem sort of stretched to fit his narrative, but none of it really changes how I feel about Shakespeare really.
Anyway, I don't see a reason anyone should read this except for scholarly purposes like writing a research paper. It's not the most engaging read, but full of all types of details.

[Patricia Lane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just started this and I love it already! Fie on the spurious gloveseller theory!....I do like it a lot but it's dense and I'm giving it a rest for a bit. It's the kind of book that needs to be absorbed.

[Elsa Triin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for the course "Shakespeare's History Plays.

This was... entertaining for sure. While it paints a colourful picture of the proposed Shakespeare, the 17th earl of Oxford, and presents interesting interpretations of the plays, there's a lot of speculation - to put it lightly.

I wouldn't recommend going into this whishing to know more factual information about Elizabethan England, especially if you're not very well-informed on the topic, but you're familiar with the Shakespeare authorship question, and take everything Beauclerk says with a grain of salt, the book is a fun time. According to the author there really are no not-incestuous relationships present, but I just eyerolled my way through it.

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 3 out of 5]

Väldigt fantasifull. Det är sällan helt trovärdigt att använda litteraturvetenskaplig metod utanför litteraturen, men det är, i detta fall, fasansfullt spännande. Författaren skapar en thriller ur frågan om vem Shakespeare egentligen var, genom att läsa alla pjästexterna som nyckelhålsromaner. Mycket intrig, incest, mordhot och säljande av samveten.

[Ian Chadwick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Piffle. As much credibility as a book on alien abductions or bigfoot. But if you read it as a fantasy written as a homage to Terry Pratchett or some other author, it is modestly entertaining, albeit overly long for such an effort.

Conspiracy theories like this are always a flimsy house of cards, depending on speculation, unfounded assertions, innuendo, misinterpretations, and sometimes just craziness. We have way too many conspiracy theories running around in real life we need to battle to pay heed to this one.

[Peter Fokes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant (Even though we will never know for sure if Edward de Vere was the son of Elizabeth and Seymour).

[Bruce Hutchison · Rating 5 out of 5]

Charles Beauclerk is a distant relative to Edward de Vere, the most likely current candidate for the author of the Shakespeare plays. The authorship of the place has been in question now for over 100 years. In that time a stack of evidence has been on earth to suggest that William Shakespeare was not the author of the place and the Edward de Vere. Still, no smoking gun has been found, and the true authorship is still waiting for a definitive answer. Charles Beauclerk makes a compelling case for de Vere as the actual author. When Beauclerk speaks at seminars and conferences he draws large audiences interested in the authorship question. He once feel the entire auditorium at Washington’s Smithsonian Institute when give a talk on the subject. His book is an excellent read and quite convincing. Highly recommended.

[Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing study

I don't know where I've been, but this is the first book I have read about Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. Shakespeare's words have been a constant presence in our lives because of my mother. I have seen and read a lot of his plays without really caring who wrote them. This book makes understanding the author of huge importance. It covers the historical perspective, as well as the psychological. The words will now have an altered and deeper meaning to me. Yay Beauclerk? Now what of Sir Henry Neville?

[Cat · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been following this debate over William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays for many years now and find it all very interesting. This book offers some new food for thought that I found compelling. For being such a famous playwright, I have often wondered that more records concerning his plays and life can't be found! I wonder if there will ever be definitive proof either way?
I received a Kindle ARC in exchange for a fair review from Netgalley.

[Rebecca Parker · Rating 1 out of 5]

Awful

The author believes Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford is Shakespeare and is also Queen Elizabeth's son. Beyond the fact that this book is nothing more than the author's opinion, it is also disjointed and full of conjecture to the point of miserable reading. Don't waste your time.

[Miranda · Rating 2 out of 5]

A lot of things presented in this book seemed way too far fetched.

[Jenny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Excellent! Indepth investigation into who was Shakespeare?

[Bobbie Sue Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The truth is as dirty as lies.

[Sarah - All The Book Blog Names Are Taken]

Did not pay close enough attention to the author and realized he is one of those who says Shakespeare is not Shakespeare and I don’t really have any interest in that nonsense.

[Doug · Rating 1 out of 5]

.

[Elliott · Rating 1 out of 5]

I thought about simply listing the errors I found in the first couple chapters for my review and just let them stand on their own as explanation for my one star rating and why I shelved this under the worst books that I have ever read. That of course provides an easy route for dismissing the book, but my feelings go deeper than that: besides hating this book, I hate the "research" that went into it, and I hate Oxfordianism for claiming a kind of "academic prowness" when this book is not an aberration of the school of Oxfordianism but a microcosm.
Point in fact the book's cover shows on the right side the Ashburne portrait of William Shakespeare that briefly gave some pause when after being x-rayed it was shown to have been deliberately altered to depict William Shakespeare. The researcher who performed the examination reported that as well as these physical alterations a family crest had been covered that appeared to have been Oxford's. All well and good...until the paint was removed during a restoration process that determined that the portrait had originally been, not Oxford, but rather one Hugh Hamersley who was roughly the same age as Shakespeare. The portrait was modified to produce an image of Shakespeare when the latter became celebrated in the mid 17th century. If that's not a dismissal for those ardent Oxfordians out there the portrait was originally dated as 1612, eight years after Oxford shuffled off this mortal coil.
Now, recall that's before you even open the book. So, the preface starts out urging us not to trust Elizabethans at face value. They are prone to exaggeration Beauclerk says. The irony of this statement, if you're waiting for its inevitable clang, comes on the second page of the preface where Beauclerk and his then eight year old son have a good laugh at the ubiquitous portrait of The Bard appearing originally in the First Folio, we are not to take Elizabethans seriously. That is except when we are, thus if we take them seriously we find that this portrait is actually a puzzle and only Beauclerk can reveal the truth. Of course Beauclerk knowing that any skeptical reader would be wary of such an allegation assures us that that's how the Elizabethans would have seen it too. You'll notice though that functionally Beauclerk is still operating as the one man who can supposedly review the truth but to make this more palatable he's just tossed in an appeal to authority. David Koresh did the same thing when he turned out to be the one guy alive who could interpret Revelations but that his interpretation would have been perfectly acceptable to Paul, as well as God of course.
But, I digress, now that we know Beauclerk and the Elizabethans have this special relationship his other errors become that much more glaring: he asserts that Shakespeare's plays exhibit an uncanny ability at Latin, Greek, French, and Italian as well as geography and court etiquette. Well: no, nope, and yet...No. In Henry V the French portions are not accurate. Bohemia is quite famously not next to water, and court etiquette is just not actually anything in Shakespeare.
On this same page Beauclerk attests that Shakespeare was forbidden at court. Charles I read Richard II on his way to the scaffold I believe.
The next page is hardly better. Beauclerk claims none of Shakespeare's contemporaries commented on his writing abilities. Also not true. Beauclerk of course claims Ben Johnson didn't actually mean what he said but Edmund Howes, William Basse, John Heminges, Henry Condell, Leonard Digges, plus the Parnassus Plays disagree.
The next page claims Will Shakespeare of Stratford wasn't always associated with the author of the Shakespeare plays. Also not true, as mentioned earlier the Ashbourne portrait was altered to meet the demand for all images of The Bard in the mid 17th century. That it resembles at least superficially the image in the First Folio knocks that assumption out. At the top of the next page: xvii for those keeping track, Beauclerk breaks with the oft (mis)quoted Dickens quote that is supposed to show his doubt as to Shakespeare's identity when what Dickens was referring to was something on Shakespeare's personal life that would sour his pure reputation as an author. Dickens never doubted his identity and that this is the only Dickens quote that Oxfordians ever bring ought to make that apparent.
Keep in mind this is still the preface. Already without finishing it off there are more than enough examples to sink this book and if I was more patient I'd keep going. Alas, suffice it to say Beauclerk carries on the book with the same selective choosing, dismissal of facts (except when Beauclerk needs to use them), and let's not forget a vast and utter void of actual evidence.

[SB · Rating 1 out of 5]

At first this book was intriguing but by the time I got halfway though it was just outlandish. I originally picked it up because of the quote on the cover from Mark Rylance. I shouldn't have. I'm open to the idea that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays. I'm not open to poorly researched and unconvincing conspiracy theories.
What really sunk this book for me wasn't when Beauclerk claimed Oxford was Elizabeth's illegitimate son, I thought 'okay I don't believe you, but I can gloss over this and get to the good stuff', it was when I read the authors biographical statement on the jacket- something from now on I will do before I buy a book.
Beauclerk claims to be Oxfords descendant. Ergo, according to the theory in this book, he also claims to be descended from Elizabeth I.
If this isn't wild enough I read a bit further on Beauclerk. In his other book, on Nell Gwyn, he claims direct descent from her as well.
Like many people writing about their family (or the people they think are family) Beauclerk talks up the theories that would make these people either good or interesting with a massive blind spot for any kind of critical analysis of his arguments or sources.
On top of the absolute weirdness of the authors claimed family tree this book is just poorly argued. He doesn't prove his points and never exhausts other options until you're convinced.
I started really questioning the validity of what I was reading when the points he was trying to make were supported only by Shakespeare's works. (Earlier in the book Beauclerk focuses on his stronger arguments in portraiture and historical record. This is compelling until you start to question how accurate his information and presentation are.)
I understand that the works are the best insight into the author. The problem with that is that Shakespeare's works run the entire gamut of human emotion and motivation, that's part of why they're so good. Trying to get an accurate read on the man by pulling select quotes from his plays to prove your point is just moronic. I could pick out a Shakespeare quote for any occasion, and likely more than one. It's unsurprising the author can do the same and unconvincing to his overall argument.
This book follows, in a way, the film Anonymous (2011) which was a brilliant historical FICTION film. Yes much of the cast and crew did believe Shakespeare didn't write the plays but there was no suggestion that the more outlandish parts of the film were anything other than a good story. Beauclerk takes these outlandish theories and tries unconvincingly to pass them for fact. It feels like he watched the film picked out the parts he liked and tried to make a case for what amounts to a conspiracy theory.
You'd be better off watching the film that at least presents itself as fiction than reading this drivel.

[Susan · Rating 1 out of 5]

I first heard of the Anti-Avonian arguments when I was in college. My immediate thought then was this sort of theory does not give credit to the individual. Half a century later, watching a documentary about Greenwich Village, I realized that Woody Allen and Richard Pryor and Bob Dylan either did not go to college or never finished college and they, like Shakespeare, are admired as writers and entertainers.

Why not a glover's son from a rural town?

First, I do not think Beauclerk's book is particularly well written or well argued. If some of the phrases in the plays and poems appear in letters written by the Earl of Oxford, all that might mean is those expressions were common then.

Second, the idea that Elizabeth I of England, who was then the most widely known woman in the world, could have had several illegitimate children as Beauclerk claims without anyone noticing her condition or the kids is silly. Yes, there is that portrait of an unknown, redhaired woman in what looks like either a maternity outfit or a dressing gown. The woman in the picture does look like Liz One. It seems doubtful she would pose in a dressing gown but the painting might have been done to embarrass her.

Third, Liz I is alleged by Beauclerk to have had sex with her own son and that produced her grandson. Right.

[Judi]

I had no intentions of starting this book now, but after browsing through the dustjacket and the first few pages I could not put it down. A historical eye-opener.

Not being a Shakespeare scholar, I have to admit being over my head at times. This book presents an indepth look at the works attributed to William Shakespeare and the history of the times. Very interesting and I will probably read it again.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wish I had the strength to get all the way through the book. I didn't find it an easy read and I skipped a couple of chapters, but the author did convince me that De Vere was Shakespeare. If you're interested in Elizabethean history, this book is worth the read. I had to rate it down for being somewhat difficult to work through in spite of a really interesting subject matter and some good history research.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

A compelling read for anyone interested in the Shakespeare authorship question. Beauclerk's assertions are generally well-supported, although he does sometimes too readily accept the "We don't know who wrote this, but if Oxford did, it would support my hypothesis" argument. However, for the sheer outrageousness of his claims, this book is recommended. I won't give it away here, but it changed my reading of every mother-son relationship in the canon. A tad long-winded, but quite interesting.

[Eke]

This was so over the place that I really did not enjoy it as much as I could have. Don't know how reliable of a source it is for research, however. I had to use it for class and I was always least looking forward to reading passages from this book.

[Tamia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting premise, but support was drawn from interpretation of Shakespeare's plays, which often seemed a bit far fetched.

[katie king · Rating 3 out of 5]

fascinating...

[Karen Lubell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Who are you, Charles Beauclerk? Beautifully done, and convincing. Moving on in a hurry to read the most recent.

[William Baresel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. This is not convincing and actually angering if some of the claims are reviewed.