Ogburn's a fabulous writer. One may read it for his style alone. Large book, many small chapters. Book II is something of the life of the 17th Earl of Oxford, but Book I is my favorite--I love Ogburn's quoting of the Orthodox scholars of Shaxberd (or Shagspere, or Shakesper, or Shakspre, or Shaxper, or Shaxpere, or Shexpere): did you know that the "university of life" is "more exacting" than the education you'd get at Cambridge? No? Important Stratfordian scholars would have you think so. They also say there is little "book learning" in the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. Then Ogburn lists all of the learning and various subjects Oxford was more or less an expert on...or had firsthand experience with (like travel, the law, falconry, botany, science, music, art, classical literature and philosophy, jousting, the military, etc.). The orthodox scholars now think that "Shakespeare" must have seen Italy in order to write about it as one who was there.

Indeed.

* We begin with the enormous amount of learning displayed in the plays and poems of William Shakeapeare: the arts, history, finance, law, military affairs, government, especially connected with royalty...not just a world--a universe--of knowledge which Pgburn sees no way for William Shakespeare of Stratrord-upon-Avon to have acquired. * William Shakespeare was not enrolled in a univesity--according to univeristy records of the time--and when he might have been privately educated though tutors, he was forced (at 18) to marry a woman eight years his senior--and was the father of three children (including twins) within two years. How could it have been possible, under these conditions, for any person to gain the kind of knowledge which the writer of the plays and poems display? * Or we begin with a man whose ancestor was at the signing of the Magna Carta, whose home Queen Elizabeth visited when he was a boy, who held degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge, and whose Latin teacher was the greatest Latin scholor in England, and who was close enough to the throne to be one of the carriers of the golden cloth above the queen's head in Westminster Abbey at the defeat of the Spanash Armada...Edward deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. Though we cannot PROVE that Shakespeare did not write the plays--nor any other negative--it is simply impossible for me to belive that he could possibly have written the plays, from the twin standpoints of his lack of education and experience, exactly the two qualities which were necessary for the plays' and poems' composition, and precisely the two qualities which Edward deVere posssed. * Ogburn's book covers these two aspects of any writer's background necessary for composing the works of Shakeapeare--education and experience--and leaves it to the reader to either agree with him or disagree with him. I wholeheartedly agree. * If Ogburn's treatse has flaws, which tome of the length of his composition does not? But the problem of how William Shakespeare, growing up in a village of approximately 2500 people in the countryside of England in the 17th century could have written the works of Shakespeare is a much larger question. Long live Edward deVere.

For open minded scholars and lovers of 'Shakespeare' who are also lovers of justice, Ogburn's book is compelling reading. Effectively decimating the possibility that a Stratford merchant who never owned a book and could barely write his own name could have produced the flower of English literature, Ogburn then introduces us to Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. The facts of this fascinating man's life would convince any but the most prejudiced reader that De Vere was indeed the author of the majority of "Shakespearian" works. Though there may be minor flaws in Ogburn's work, (as there are in any work of this magnitude, even Shakespeare's) that is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater! Let's not lose sight of the fact that a major discovery has been made about the world's most influential author. And with Oxford, a fascinating human being as Shakespeare, the infinitely fascinating plays gain an even deeper emotional impact. Essential reading for anyone who cares about literature.

I purchased this book after seeing the author interviewed on television and reading the reviews. I cannot understand the number of 5-star reviews this book was given. The only plausible explanation is that they were all written by Mr. Streitz himself. Whether or not Oxford was the son of Elizabeth I is irrelevant. This is one of the most poorly researched and poorly written books I have ever tried to read. I finally gave up after the third time he told of event that probably happened, but for which there is no proof yet, stating that sometime in the future "someone" should do the research. No, Mr. Streitz, that someone should have been you, and the time to do the research is before you write the book.

Bottom line - unreadable drivel.

According to this book, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is not only the author of Shakespeare's plays, but much of the rest of the Tudor canon. He, not Golding, translated Ovid. He wrote Euphues. He wrote The Spanish Tragedy. You name it. But that's just the literary part. It turns out he is not only the son of a 13 year old Princess Elizabeth but also the parent (with his mother, the Virgin Queen) of the Earl of Southampton, the young man of the sonnets.

You might think this is Oxfordianism run amok. You might be right. Moreover, the book suffers from many of the usual defects of the Oxfordian cause. The author is an amateur. His professional credits listed on the dust jacket include service in the 82nd Airborne in Vietnam, an MBA from the University of Chicago, and co-authorship of the musicals "Oh, Johnny" and "Madison Avenue, the subliminal musical". And the book is self-published and suffers from numerous typos and mis-usages, especially in the first part, where credibility is won or lost.

However...the book offers many plausible arguments and some hard data as well as speculation. If you have any interest in the Authorship Question, you should read this book. (If you don't have any interest, you should take an interest; final confirmation and general acknowledgement of Oxford as Shakespeare would illuminate and transform both Tudor history and literature.) Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Henry James and many others long ago pointed out the implausibility of the Will of Stratford story that continues to be taught in school. Searching for the true author, the unfortunately named J. Thomas Looney fitted the glass slipper to de Vere during the First World War. And the professoriat has been trying to ignore it ever since. I suppose they fear looking foolish, and anyway the deconstructionists of the last 40 years have made clear that authorship is of no importance.

One academic, Roger Stritmatter, has recently given attention to the Earl's Geneva Bible in the Folger Library, where marginalia in the Earl's handwriting correlate very strongly with bibilical references in Shakespeare. The greatest need is to find more professors of English renaissance literature and Tudor history willing to break ranks and finally give attention to the mounting evidence in favor of Oxford as the author; they have relied on professorial hauteur long enough.

In the meantime, amateurs should carefully proofread their texts.

"Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth" by Paul Streitz (published by Oxford Institute Press, 2001) is an extraordinary and provocative book. It is likely to be considered totally unacceptable to "Stratfordian" Shakespearean scholars, who believe that plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare can only be the work of the celebrated man of that name, born in Stratford-upon-Avon and christened "Gulielmus Shakspere" in 1564. By contrast, the book will be welcomed by "Oxfordians" who believe that the same plays and poetry should instead be attributed to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, born in 1548.

This authorship question has been growing for several decades. Streitz has now contributed to the debate by compiling historical evidence to suggest that Elizabeth I was the mother of the Bard, that the biological father was Thomas Seymour, and that the 16th Earl of Oxford (John de Vere) was his foster-father. These suggestions may be considered preposterous by many critics, but Streitz obviously would not have dared to publish his book if he did not have some substance to advance them.

Consider the so-called "Virgin Queen". Streitz notes that "in over four hundred years, there have been no critical investigations of whether or not Elizabeth had children". Evidently there had been rumours circulating in 1549, when Elizabeth was just 15 years old. In a letter addressed to Edward Seymour, the Lord Protector, the princess herself referred to "shameful Schandlers" (slanders) that she was "with Child". In a second letter she appealed again to the Lord Protector, requesting that "no such rumours should be spread". Apparently she succeeded in this regard. Now, 450 years later, Streitz is the first person to link the "Schandlers" with events in the summer of 1548, when a child was born in suspiciously secret circumstances to a "very fair young lady" of about "fifteen or sixteen years of age". There is no proof that this young lady was princess Elizabeth, but Streitz considers this as a possibility in the context of events which he strings together to make a possible if not proven case. Notably, suspicions are associated with "the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the birth of the saide Edward, now Earle of Oxforde" (to quote from a late 16th century document)..

There is no doubt that the 17th Earl of Oxford was given opportunities to study in Cambridge (in 1564) and in Oxford (1566), and that he travelled to France and Italy (1575). Further, there is no doubt that Edward de Vere did write poetry, but not every modern scholar would accept that the de Vere poems correspond to the quality and style of those attributed to William Shakespeare. By contrast, Gabriel Harvey, a contemporary of the Earl, was absolutely flattering in 1578: "Thou has hast drunk deep draughts not only of the Muses of France and Italy...thine eyes flash fire, thy countenance shakes spears" (from Latin, 'tela vibrat', which can be alternatively translated as "brandishes spears"). Oxfordians venture to say that it is not coincidental that the name Shakespeare can itself be translated into Latin as 'tela vibrat'.

"Shakespeare's Sonnets", with a publication date of 1609 , have been interpreted in numerous ways. Streitz provides novel interpretations, suggesting not only that they include cryptic references to the 17th Earl of Oxford, but also that they were written by that dignitary whose dignity was diminished towards the end of his lifetime.

A poem with metaphorical references to bees is extraordinary. It includes references to henbane, hemlock and other substances, including tobacco. The line "wordes, hopes, witts, and the all the world [is] but smoke" leads to the statement "Twas not tobacco [that] stupifyed the brain". If the verse was indeed written by the Earl of Oxford, as Streitz suggests, perhaps at times he wrote under the influence of a substance more "bewitching" than tobacco: "from those [leaves] no dram of sweete I drayne, their head strong [fury] did my head bewitch"

"Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth" makes very interesting reading, even though one need not accept everything contained in it. There are intriguing facts, such as the Queen's grant of 1,000 pounds per annum to the 17th Earl of Oxford. That was an enormous sum of money in 1586. The obvious question is why? Was it really a gift from a benevolent mother to a playwright son? Streitz suggests that the anomalously large grant was intended to support actors and playwrights to prop up political power at a time when Elizabeth I had to be extremely careful against Catholic opposition at home, and the prospect of a Spanish invasion.

To assess the merits of the book, it is strongly recommended that it be read in its entirety. Even if one is willing to absorb and accept only parts of it, those parts may help to "flesh out" an understanding of relationships between Elizabeth I and the 17th Earl of Oxford, in the context of literary debate.

Reviewed by J.F. Thackeray, Transvaal Museum, Box 413, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

I too found this book exciting and controversial when I first read it. I admit, I was even taken in for a while. Ogburn's argument seemed so persuasive, his argument presented with such confidence and power. Surely he was right and the 'man from Stratford' couldn't possibly have written those plays. And then, having read it, I did some follow-up research of my own. To the reviewer below who states that there is no evidence ("none") to suggest that the Stratford poet is the true author, I have to tell you that that's complete nonsense. The trouble with Ogburn is that he's highly er...'imaginative' with his evidence, to the point of wilfully misleading the reader. One example will suffice to make my point: in the 1623 First Folio, Ben Jonson's well-known eulogy to the 'author' includes the phrase: 'Sweet swan of Avon'. Naturally, Stratfordians have reasonably assumed that this 'Avon' refers to the town of Shakespeeare's birth and death. Not so, says Ogburn. In fact the 17th Earl of Oxford owned a manor called Bilton, also situated on the river Avon. So Jonson MUST've been referring to the Earl. Closer analysis reveals the truth. Edward de Vere did indeed own a manor called Bilton, situated on the river Avon. Unfortunately for Ogburn and his cause, Oxford sold this manor in 1581 and it hadn't been reclaimed by him at his death in 1604. Does it seem likely that Jonson would refer to an old manor of Oxford's 42 YEARS after it left his hands? I don't think so. If we can believe that then to believe that Shakespeare is the true author is a cinch. Needless to say, this is a piece of information that Ogburn leaves out. All of Ogburn's, and the anti-Stratfordians', ideas can be refuted. Ogburn also completely misleads the reader over the issue of the non-appearance of Shakespeare in the diary of the impresario Philip Henslowe. No other actors, at the time when Shakespeare SHOULD'VE appeared in the diary, are mentioned either. Only later, after the mid-1590s, did Henslowe begin to include the names of actors in his diary, and by this time he had nothing further to do with Shakespeare, who was now acting with the Lord Chamberlain's Men. Having waded through all 750-odd pages of this book I was digusted to learn how I'd been mislead. It makes an interesting ... theory, but one that is in the same league as the idea that the moonlandings were faked in a hanger in Nevada. I have no academic axe to grind at all, but don't waste time reading this, especially when you can better spend the time reading Shakespeare himself.

Ogburn's views generally convince those who will examine the historical evidence. It is not fantasy to think that they may eventually prevail, as literary historians who have not already committed themselves to the Stratfordian view gradually replace those who have. But it will take time. The problem is not so much the "you're all crackpots" attitude nor the "you're prejudiced against the uneducated" attitude -- both reflected in earlier reviews. The problem is that if the traditional attitude is true then "Shakespeare" was a transcendent, almost mystical genius, whereas if the Oxfordian theory is true then "Shakespeare" was a great genius but one whose inspiration obviously came -- as it has for most great writers -- from his own life and experiences. To bring him "down to earth" like that will be emotionally wrenching. But the parallels between the writings of "Shakespeare" and de Vere's life seem overwhelming.

Ogburn's views have been popularized in other books but this -- a summary of his much-longer book -- is better. Read it to see what the history books may say fifty years from now.

Count me a convert, along with the following people who believe the Stratford man did not write the poems or the plays: Mr. Justice Harry A. Blackmun (Supreme Court Justice); Mr. Justice John Paul Stevens (Supreme Court Justice); Orson Welles; Mark Twain; Charles Dickens; Henry James; David McCullough; Ralph Waldo Emerson; Sir John Gielgud; Sigmund Freud; Walt Whitman; Mr.Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Supreme Court Justice); Charles DeGaulle; Ambasadore Paul Nitze.

Charlton is not the most flowing writer, but his points are very well researched - a fascinating who-done-it which most likely never can be proven. The evidence clearly points away from "Wm. Shakspere, Gent."

Read this book, then re-read Hamlet. You will have moments which will make your skin crawl.

Although I'm pretty sure the author was serious when he wrote it, this book is filled with factual errors and bizarre logic which had me howling with laughter. All theories of alternate "Shakespeares" which I've seen rely on factual distortions and arbitrary assertions, but this book is worse than most. Read it for its entertainment value, but for God's sake don't start to take it seriously! For a lot of facts about Shakespeare, and refutations of the most common Oxfordian claims, visit the Shakespeare Authorship page on the Web.

Dave Kathman djk1@ix.netcom.com

I love the way these people take this twaddle seriously. It's priceless fun.

Disappointing. Mr. Allen starts by positing a collaboration between the man from Stratford and Edward, the 17th Earl of Oxford. By the end of the book, it's no longer a possibility but definite -- and without supporting evidence. Frankly, I can't imagine a more unlikely collaboration. I think the author is influenced by the thought that "Shakespeare" is a group effort, possibly headed by Edward Oxford. He struggles with it, as all of us interested in the controversy do. But as far as I can see, his case is unproven.