There's the old conspiraacy that Edward de Vere is Elizabeth's secret child. I think with Thomas Seymour. I can only imagine why Lizzie would want to sleep with her our son if it were true. I dunno maybe she was so busy running the country she forgot she gave birth. She had no idea that he was her son as she gave the son up straight after birth and never laid eyes on him again. Or maybe incest is a genetic trait she inherited from her mother.

Either way, I'm prepared to give the movie a go. It looks like a nice bit of harmless fluff that will get people into a bit of a tither like The Da Vinci Code did. I love sitting back and laughing at those people. Cause the more they complain and rally against something, the wilder the success is and the more out of control the legend gets.

I'm sorry that you took offence to that comment. I was trying to be humourous. I for one second don't believe she ever committed or thought about commiting incest with her brother.

BUT if these rumours of Edward being Lizzie's son and Lizzie having a relationship was started by anti-Boleyn factions, it's not hard to imagine them using the false charge of incest as a justification for the wild rumour.

There was a discussion awhile ago on the Elizabeth Files about the “Anonymous,” Shakespeare, and Elizabeth's secret love child. So, I will post my comments from the EF thread. I hope they make sense in the context of Mya's thread. Cheers!

As you know, I love The Shakespeare Secret (a fictional book about the Shakespeare authourship question). JL Carrell does a great job of exploring the Shakespeare authorship question. She explores the Oxfordian theory that Edward de Vere (the future Earl of Oxford) as the writer of Shakespeare. Okay, that sounds reasonable. However, after reading Paul Streitz's book Oxford: son of Elizabeth I, I could no longer accept anything the Oxfordians put forth.

It is one thing to challenge the accepted view that William Shakespeare from Stratford wrote the plays, sonnets; but it is another to change history to suit one's theories. The laughable theory that Elizabeth gave birth to Thomas Seymour's child, who was adopted by John de Vere, became heir to the Earldom of Oxford, wrote Shakespeare, and had an inceteous affiar with the Queen is something out of imagination. There is no evidence to prove any of this. From my readings, the Oxfordians believe the absense of evidence is proof. Okay, not in my world!

We know Elizabeth was attracted to Seymour, and there was some unsavoury behaviour by all parties. But, there is no sense that she was ever pregnant. Your point about rumour and gossip at court is true, and there would have been someone who knew. Streitz goes further and claims Elizabeth gave birth to more children via Leicester, among others.

Yes, Elizabeth was banished from Katherine Parr's home and care in 1548. She was sent to Sir Anthony Denny's home (Cheshurst) from May to October 1548. I recall something about her being ill during this time. It is within the timeframe of Seymour, Kat Ashley, and other arrests. Some people (Weir uses this theory in her book Lady Elizabeth, right?) that Elizabeth was actually pregnant at this time, and so continues the Prince Tudor theory.

There is only one way, for me, to explain the absense of historical records, and that is that is did not happen.

The problem, and I believe Carrell points this out (at least Kate Stanley does) that, during Shakespeare's time, it was accepted that Will wrote the plays. It was not until a few hundred years later that these theories came to a head, and people have ran with them ever since.

The Oxfordians claim Shakespeare scholars do not want to tell the truth, since the university has a hold on Truth. But, how can anyone take seriously such convoluted theories when no historical evidence exist. What I hate the most about the Oxfordian theory is their elitist position that a glove-maker's sone did not have the intelligence or perception to write “Hamlet,” “MacBeth,” “King Lear,” etc.

If Will Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare, then I like the Earl of Derby as a candidate.

I will go see the new film “Anonymous.” I get a sense from some internet searching it will delve into the Prince Tudor theory, so we know what that means.

If you want to read another fictional account of the search for the real Shakespeare, I recommend Sarah Smith's Chasing Shakespeares. I did not like it as much as Carrell's, but it was still a fun read.

Sorry for the long reply. I felt the need to get on the soap box today. I'm done and stepping down.

Read more: http://www.elizabethfiles.com/…..z1XB4CLrSv

Guardian link

Robin Maxwell wrote a novel about Elizabeth I having a child – Dudley was the father though! I think it's called Queen's Bastard. It's an entertaining read which doesn't take itself too seriously and tries to deal with the how she could have concealed a pregnancy.

I've never heard of the De Vere conspiracy. I can't quite see the Earls of Oxford allowing someone else's bastard to inherit their earldom though…

Just trying to think of the logic with the story. Would the Earls of Oxford (and the supporters of this theory) argue that by adopting Elizabeth's bastard, it would put them in a better position with the King? Cause they are doing the Tudor family a massive favour by hiding such a scandal?