Edward de Vere (1550-1604): The Crisis and Consequences of Wardship [Hardcover]

This is a yet another biography of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who has gained renown in the past hundred years as the most likely candidate for the Shakespeare laurels (aside from the traditional candidate) - a position held by US Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Scalia, as well as intellectuals Sigmund Freud and John Galsworthy, and theater professionals Orson Welles, Leslie Howard, Sir Derek Jacobi, and Michael York.

Mostly, however, this is an attack on the Earl of Oxford that is built upon incompetent scholarship. As historian Christopher Paul wrote in reviewing the book for The English Historical Review (September 2006): "Pearson discusses his relationships, his religion, and presents him as more 'renaissance courtier' than 'feudal baron' -- a person consumed with self-interest who alienated almost all of his estate. But her main concern is with his finances, and the impact upon them of wardship. Unfortunately, Pearson's book here rests upon shaky ground. The fundamental error is her claim that Oxford's inherited landed income on the death of his father in 1562 was as much as £3,500 per year.

"Yet there are several sources that show that it was much smaller: an indenture of 1 July 1562 made by his father referring to lands worth £2,000 a year (Huntington Library HAP o/s Box 3 [19]); his father's inquisition post mortem taken on 18 January 1563 (TNA, C 142/136/12), giving a total net value of all the lands and offices that were inherited by Edward as £2,187 2s 7d per year; a manorial survey prepared by the feodaries of the Court of Wards and Liveries which gave the net value of the earl's lands and offices in 1563-64 as £2,228 8s 7d (TNA, WARD 8/13); a declaration of the account of the receipt and revenues of Oxford's lands and possessions in various counties over five years from 1562 to 1567 (TNA, SP 12/44/19), and another over seven years (TNA, SP 12/47/86). She considers some, but not all, of these sources, and repeatedly fails to cite the sum totals that are either given in these documents or can be easily calculated from them.

"...these sources offer a remarkably clear and consistent impression, confirming that there was no under-valuation in the assessment of the Oxford estates, contrary to Pearson's claims. Oxford's inherited income was not £3,500, but around £2,200 per year. Inescapably, that error reduces confidence in Pearson's subsequent discussion of the fortunes of 'the most profligate of Tudor nobles' who always, in her view, 'portrayed himself as more sinned against than sinner' (210). Above all, unwary readers will not readily grasp how misleading Pearson's presentation of her evidence is throughout: only scholars who have worked through the documents themselves will realize the imprecision of her reasoning and the many omissions and errors in this book."