SHAKESPEARE'S CHILDREN
ELIZABETH
FEARED having children because of the threat that someone either
would try to put that child on the throne, whilst she was still
alive, or the child itself would attempt it later on. In either case
this would have meant the Queen's death. A prospect, as one can
imagine, she did not relish. The numerous efforts of Mary Stuart
supporters to slay her didn’t continue with her son’s people.
This was nothing to do with the consequences of Mary's execution. Her
people from Scotland and the rest from England were Catholics and
were prepared to put anyone on the throne that was of their faith.
They did not bother with James as he was brought up a Protestant.
Although this was not good news for the Catholics, it meant that
James could curry favour with Elizabeth this he did. She was not
unsympathetic to him and wrote often, establishing a friendly
relationship, if not showing affection towards him. She was more like
his own mother than what Mary was, even when she was alive.1
In any case she granted him a pension of 4000 a year starting from
1586.2
This was even before Mary's death! That event might have changed his
attitude, you might think? Yet it appears not. Sure he did not want
his mother's death, but it left him to become King, after Elizabeth.
Mind you the Spanish Armada sent by Philip of Spain would not have
set him on the throne, nor would he have seen it as revenge for his
mother's death. Philip in his message to the Pope, made it clear that
James was a heretic and wasn't going to make him King of England. No
he had a much better person in mind, Philip himself!3
Undoubtedly he would then go on to take the Scottish Throne
afterwards.
Curiously
James was told (by Elizabeth) that Mary's death was a “miserable
accident” and she was “innocent” of the deed, although she did
not go into precise details of the event. This being left to Robert
Carey (Lord Hunsdon' son) and what he said to James is not recorded.
Oddly Robert also told James of Elizabeth's death sixteen years
later.4
The upshots of this feeling towards him was that
Shakespeare and his acting colleagues would (by Royal command) have
to go to Scotland, to perform for King James. They might have gone
with their patron’s son, Robert. I think it’s too much of a
coincidence, when we find the King even took the actors to Denmark as
part of the entertainments for his courtship of Anne, as the fleet of
five ships would have been big enough. Certainly if William did not
go, which I think near impossible, he got the details from someone
who had gone, which was Ben Jonson, who‘s recorded as going. The
entire episode is used as the ‘wooing scene’ between Henry and
Katherine of France in the updated Henry
V. There was possibly no Katherine in
the first version at all. Fifteen year old Anne could only speak
French, apart from her native language. So James would have to speak
French too.5
It amused William anyway! All this would have taken place before
1590 and they would have been sent also for the wedding of James to
Anne of Denmark, in 1590. There is evidence that actors went to
Scotland for the purpose of entertaining James. They would have to
have financed the journey themselves, because Elizabeth was not in
favour of spending money on extravagant entertainments out of the
public purse. Even so the actors would have asked, as they would have
been cheeky enough to! Her reply would be that they could make people
laugh as they travelled to Scotland, calling at the various Lords
houses, the same Lords who would have been present at the court. They
would have agreed, to court Royal favour, yet moaned about it between
themselves after. Whether the Lord who was responsible for the troupe
of players, paid for the trip, is I think, doubtful.
In
any case the trip itself would have been profitable for the players,
as they would not have to have paid for the expense of the theatre.
It was not a new thing for them. They toured all over when the
theatres had to be closed, even before as well. It also always did a
world of good for Shakespeare's imagination; boosted by talks with
the owners and family, plus the servants, of the places they stopped
at, or performed in. The characters of his plays, if they had all
come out of books, would seem dull and lifeless, but add some tales
(even tall ones) and you have realism in the play. He could also pick
up more information on the Queen’s past. Proof of tours can be
found in 1603. We have a direct reference to Shakespeare being at the
house of the Pembroke’s, (in Salisbury) performing As
You Like It, for them and King James.6
The connection of James and the Bard was, in any case, there before
James’s ascension to the English Throne, for why would the Bard and
his fellows be in the procession through London in 1604? Not only
that, they were given (each) 4 yards of red cloth, by the King’s
Master of the Great Wardrobe, Sir George Home, who put Shakespeare’s
name first, in his none alphabetical order accounts.7
I
suspect two plays would directly come out of these trips to Scotland.
No, one of them was not Macbeth!
Actually it was Hamlet
and the Tempest,
though the Tempest
would be greatly revised years later and the revised copies of all
the plays that were printed in the Works, the originals mostly lost.
Both had been performed for the first time by 1590. Most of
Shakespeare's plays are either English, Italian, or about Ancient
Rome. Only one is set in Denmark - Hamlet!
Why? Well we do not need to look far for the answer to that one. Take
one beautiful blond from Denmark and stick her in the court of James
of Scotland, only when she tries to get there, the stormy Scottish
weather nearly sinks the ship, one of 13. The Tempest
opens with a sinking ship, on board is Miranda. This is of course
Anne of Denmark; you can even make out her name in the word MY ANN A
DANE, and that
is a fair bet what was going through William's mind,
when he thought up the name. With shipwrecks and Denmark in his head
the likelihood that our Will was in love with a third Anne!
Now of
course this was way beyond what a man of Shakespeare's status should
be about, yet as he says love knows no barriers and as I have shown
with Elizabeth, he generally got his way. Yes good things do come in
threes; still he has one hell of a problem with this one!
For
starters she is going to marry King James, who is not going to let
another man take advantage of his wife to be, is he? Then there’s
the problem of her Royal family, back home, the scandal of the court,
if it became known, not forgetting his wife and Elizabeth! After Anne
was married, to continue this affair would be dangerous as the death
penalty applied then for adultery with a Royal person. The other
thing is that we don't know if Anne felt the same way towards
William. Err we do! The results speak for themselves! No - unlike
Elizabeth she didn't write things, which we can find in Shakespeare's
Works. This is in the view of her limited intellect, agreed by most
historians to be the case. In other words she was even more of a
dumb blond than Elizabeth, having said that she would have to been
very intelligent to pull the wool over James's eyes, if she wanted to
make love to Will. No - again she wasn't. As we are surmising here,
I think she was quickly spotted (by James) making eyes at William and
he at her.
So how do
we know that Anne and William made love? No I won’t tell you yet,
till we have explored the reason James didn’t object to it.
King Queer and King Drunk
There
can only be one reason why James Stuart, King of Scotland and only
son of Mary Stuart, let William make love to his future wife, is that
he didn't want to! The marriage had to be arranged. Once again in
his court a great deal of pressure was applied to secure future
heirs. Unlike Elizabeth, James was made of weaker stuff and he needed
to find an excuse to get out of this marriage. Trouble was he
couldn't likely find one. Unfortunately the other candidates, that
were suggested, didn't meet with the approval of the Scottish people
or James. Sir James Melville goes as far as to suggest that the King
himself started a riot, which occurred on the 28 May in Edinburgh,
about the King marriage to Anne. He was probably told Anne was the
most stupid princess in Europe and that he shouldn't marry her.
Which, desperately grasping at straws, he took as a sign that he
might not need to do the deed of making any children, as she wouldn't
know what to do. Particularly if he had heard the story of Henry VIII
and Anne of Cleves, another princess who Henry didn't get a divorce
from, as she had no idea what to do and the marriage was not
consummated. No woman wanted to marry him, who was not stupid. This
must also have been a big joke in the Royal Families of Europe for
some time after.8
So unlike Elizabeth who evades marriage, James consented. To be
accurate he was seen as quite keen!
On
the 18 June the party set off for Denmark and by December, James and
Anne where at Elsinore. That’s got to be a big clue! So was Ben
Jonson, another clue, for why is an actor there? Well we know what he
did. For Ben was watching James, Anne’s father Frederick II, get
legless on Danish sprits, German Ale and Prussian Beer! Doubtless
Jonson and Shakespeare joined in. Turns out that Anne’s father is
alcoholic as well!
Imagine James’ delight when he saw the pair of
'star crossed
lovers'. This would have lead to
great favours for William. The real question is would his new Queen
go along with it, was she that stupid! Perhaps, we don't know,
nevertheless James left a lot to be desired for a young woman. He
drank excessively as we have just seen, and his table manners were
appalling, these are just a few among a long list. 9
Then again in the case of drink so did William and so did her father.
So perhaps she liked a drink as well! Maybe this is why the first
child isn’t born until 1594. Perhaps she’s waiting for King James
to do the deed, before giving up on him. After that she’s pregnant
at least 12 times till 1606 on a regular basis, though only 9 are
born.
Then
the real reason James did not want to marry and have children, was he
preferred men, yes he was homosexual, unlike William and we know he
had many male favourites, as did his court. Long before he got
married the Scottish court had to intervene in a relationship with
another man, something James was very disappointed about. Nor was he
seen in the company of women before this, unless he had to. Secondly
he had been taught by George Buchanan to hold all women in contempt.
Poetry from his youth has survived, which is very bigoted towards
women! Even Queen Elizabeth knew he was gay, or as they would have
viewed it then, not quite right, as she was told that young men lay
in his chambers, this was in 1589!10
To
be fair to James, he would have only been able to pull the false
marriage off, because he was King, needing to remain in the closet,
to stay King. If the people really knew he was what they called a
‘sodomite,’ he would have risked being put to death. To keep it a
secret is quite an achievement for him. He nearly failed! It is known
that the King in 1605 took libel action, against an unknown person.
This person claimed that Henry was not James’ son, almost
certainly, by suggesting that Anne was unfaithful.11
Most biographers put this incident in reference to Mary’s
adulteries and James’ suspect parentage, something that did vex
James. It is of course possible for a gay man to produce children
with a woman, but a belief, for many, in gay culture, it is something
they would prefer not to do. Historians simply think that James
turned heterosexual for a while then turned back. Few Gay people
today doubt that can happen, never mind heterosexuals! However for
many homosexual males, their culture then was of hatred to women. It
was not a bit like modern times, where women tend to feel at ease
more around gay men. In some ways it was just like those lesbians who
are not keen on men in any part of their life. James’ later
attitude to his wife is well recorded and her hatred is evident
towards her husband.
King Charles Shakespeare
So did
James prefer not to do it? The results speak for themselves! Hilliard
and Oliver (the portrait painters) produced miniatures of the Royal
family of Anne and supposedly James, however their children don't
really look like James! You can see a match to Anne, but certainly
not to James. What is most interesting is that the children bare a
MORE striking likeness to Hilliard's miniature of a Man clasping a
hand, or William Shakespeare. One miniature of a child of Anne of
Denmark is so like
William, that when I first saw it I thought it was
some kind of back dated picture of William when young. This theory
was quickly abandoned, because of the painter and the clothing style.
It turned out to be Charles I. Now I'm not going to base all my
evidence on the fact that these paintings bare a resemblance to one
miniature. Unfortunately William's own family can't help us trace
evidence of hereditary features, as the lines all died out. However
the line of the Royals didn't end. We know that the present Royal
Family is descending along a female branch of their tree to Elizabeth
Stuart. The miniatures and other portraits, of her, bare a strong
similarity to William. If the present Royal Family were in fact
descended from James, genetics and hereditary chromosomes would
confer a likeness to James Stuart in members alive or dead. Yet when
comparisons are made to the portraits of James, none seem to fit!
They same
is not true of William Shakespeare. Even some pictures of our Queen
Elizabeth are
remarkable like him!!
Compare
George VI, Edward VIII even Victoria and you will see William - NOT
James, in their faces. I was amazed to discover that because the
Royal members often married their relations, like Victoria and
Albert, who were cousins, the likeness to Shakespeare was carried
through to subsequent generations. The future heirs to the British
Throne by Charles and Diana have also the same combination of
genetics, inherited from their father and even more so from their
mother, just like Albert & Victoria. The Royal Family Tree is of
course the best-documented family tree ever. Members of the family
included the other Royal Families of Europe. A policy of marrying
Royal to Royal has meant the hereditary features of Shakespeare have
spread to all the European countries. We know that not only a
likeness but also other things are passed from generation to
generation. Disease is the most obvious one. Researchers have tracked
Porphyria through the Royal Family and we know Shakespeare openly
comments on madness in Hamlet and other plays. The conclusion that
can be drawn from this is that either William or HIS family had a
sufferer of Porphyria. However claims have been made that Mary
Stuart, Queen of Scots also suffered from it. I however disputed this
in the book Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart
and stand by this argument. Porphyria
is more common in women, so the fact that the Royals came off
Elizabeth Stuart means that she was the child of Shakespeare that
gave the family the illness, if at all.12
Without
doubt many of the Royal males have had Shakespeare's liking of women,
and have gone down in the book of great lovers!
The other
picture of Shakespeare by Soest, also strongly resemble members of
the Royals, like the Jules Bastien - Lepage picture of Albert Edward
from 1879, one of those great lovers. He is believed
to be another
one infected with Porphyria, yet his symptoms fit better with
Alcoholism, listed in James Graham’s book.
Admittedly
the ‘wig’ wearing members of the family are much harder to make
comparisons with William and James. However we know they are related
to the present family so it makes no difference. The other funny
thing is that some of the miniatures of James himself bear a
resemblance to William’s earlier picture. His main portraits do not
and the large doleful eyes13
of these and descriptions of him, are not a characteristic of his
children or descendants. Yet all this only means that the miniatures
of him are based on the patterns that were drawn for Shakespeare.
James detested having his picture painted. Nor did he like being on
public display at all.
It’s not
inconceivable that William used to impersonate the King. As Will was
an actor this is not too hard to imagine and ideal for security
purposes. This idea has been used in recent times for a whole string
of important people and could have been used then. James himself
lived in fear of attempts on his life and one of these is still
celebrated oddly enough, currently. The King also suspected that
Anne, his wife, might have been part of the plots.
We should
not play down Anne of Denmark part in this process of beautifying the
future ancestors. Her genes contributed good looks to many of the
Royals, plus William was also good looking as well. Her influence can
be seen at its best in the late Princess Diana, who has been seen as
one of the most beautiful women of the late 20th Century. In the end
Anne moved away from her husband and where she set up her home is
still called Denmark House even today.
King Impotent the First
Of course it’s equally feasible that James did want children with his wife, for he doesn’t have ill feeling to the royal children. If you look at the tombs of those that died early and the sheer expense on them, it would suggest great love of the kids. Yet they still don’t look like him. So what if James and Anne did try for children and their efforts came to nothing? What other ways to procure heirs were left open to them?
However
what evidence do we have that they did try for kids together? Well
for one thing Anne doesn’t get pregnant for four years after they
were married. Then she never stops. Now if the kids did look like
James, then I would believe either a medical problem was responsible
for the delay (in either parent) or they were not trying for
children. As we are talking 16th
Century here they were unquestionably at it and again they don’t
look like… So as Anne could produce children it was James shooting
blanks. As I was so preoccupied with James’ being Gay, I never
considered the more likely explanation that James was infertile. Male
infertility is a problem now. Most males wouldn’t be keen on
talking about it now, yet there must be a percentage of the male
population who can’t farther children. That number must have also
been there in the past and would probably be greater than now, I
assume. We know that various common diseases can cause it and genetic
problems, as well as sexual transmitted disease. Some children’s
infections caught when mature can do the trick. With no cures male
infertility must have been widespread, compared to modern times.
Historian Alan Haynes also mentions injury by the kick from a horse
and other forms of injury. As I strongly suspected, male infertility
reports are difficult to find in historical records, according to
Haynes.14
If James did injure his genitals, I do not know of any records, but
the King being just sick, after puberty, was probably common. Any
recorded sickness after that could have made him un-reproductive.
James would never know. Haynes also suggests that, without the kick
in the balls, the 16th
Century man put this lack of knowledge (as to the cause of him
shooting blanks) down to ungodly or mystical ways.
As
far as I know there are also no bastard children for James, not that
it is really significant, for Kings are not supposed to have them
anyway, but most seem to anyhow. Yet there wouldn’t be if my
scenario is correct. So James being a King had no-choice to go
elsewhere to get his wife pregnant. We also know that he suffered
with the usual diseases that have these side effects. Is there any
evidence though for infertility to be the reason William fathers the
royal children? Hearsay unfortunately is the answer. Haynes, looking
for clues to fill in the gaps caused by the gaps in recorded history
about infertility, picks up that Ben Jonson has an uncommon interest
in his plays about the subject. But he is not the only playwright
with a fixation. And there’s no smoke without fire! Thomas
Middleton picks up the story in his play A
Chast Mayd In Cheapside. Clearly both
Middleton and Jonson knew the King wasn’t the father of his
children. Middleton perhaps knew who was! He clearly made the two
Shakespeare brothers into his characters Touchwood
Junior\Senior. (William being Senior
the other being Edmund). We can gather from this play that William
has it off with any female he sees and these results in children more
often than not. Sir Oliver & Lady
Kix in the play are having problems
with getting a baby…Well you see where it’s going. Needless to
say Touchwood has
this magic water which he gives to Lady Kix – on the bed! If
Middleton has insider information on Shakespeare and he has put it
this play, we can take Sir Oliver’s instructions to Touchwood has
being King James to Shakespeare “get
children, and I’ll keep them.”15
James
also has a pet hate, which is thought to stem from storms nearly
killing him and his new wife. These storms were conjured up women who
were branded witches. Henceforth James persecuted them. I don’t
think he did this over storms. The ungodly ways of witches were
enough for him to be the cause of James’ impotence. Witchcraft was
blamed for anything without logical explanations and male infertility
was no exception. Perfect male arrogance, when you think about it.
Blame the witch! It’s quite possible that women called that, who
were single were lesbians and had male hatred chucked at them as
well. Thomas Campion, even put the idea that witches caused it, into
a song.16
Ironically witches killed had no idea they were dying because the
King was infertile. Even if they cursed his future generation their
curse would amount to nothing for he had no future generation.
Shakespeare however helped create the images of witches with his play
Macbeth.
He also created… This new sort of occupation for William (creating
Royal children) could be an explanation why there are no new plays,
listed in the Works, being produced after1590. However I think this
highly unlikely. Then again I have found further evidence that fits
Shakespeare and his fathering techniques.
Dark Lady Lane
In his search for the now mythical Dark Lady of the Sonnets, the historian A. L. Rowse thought she would be in Simon Forman’s writings of the period.17 Forman, astrology come doctor, made extensive notes, because of the need to find the correct time and date of birth for astrological purposes. He didn’t see Shakespeare (the man himself) because William didn’t know his date or time of birth. Most likely he couldn’t remember them, again due to drink, which is known to destroy Brian cells associated with memory. This fact is established from some court case, where Will was required to give evidence, they did establish he was born in 1564.
Forman
did see some of the plays, although his notes just record very basic
facts, which can be gained from reading them. Rowse wasn’t
interested in this for he saw a lady of some standing connected with
Lord Hunsdon, who had sex with just about anyone - even Forman. The
‘bad reputation’ he needed for the Dark
Lady and Shakespeare Boss if you like!18
Of course she had nothing to do with the Sonnets.
Yet name should ring bells. It’s Emilia Lanier (nee Bassanio), one
of William’s actress’. This does not put her out of the question
as some kind of mistress to Shakespeare, for she has a book published
in 1611. The printer, one Valentine Simms, also printed plays of
Shakespeare. The publisher was a Richard Bowen, who as yet in my
investigation reveals no connection with the Bard. 19
Called Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum
(Hail, God King of the Jews) modern historians think it is one of the
earliest Feminist works ever recorded! Plus it’s also very rare, as
only 4 copies are known to exist.20
Feminists had a field day as well and Emilia is now taught to up and
coming feminists at the universities.
Historians
and feminists should have known better. Rowse even spotted
similarities with Shakespeare yet passed them off as common. We must
forgive them, because they see no links with Queen Elizabeth, Anne of
Denmark, or a change of religion. On the other hand I do! I and now
you do that William was blessed by Liz’s favour in his youth and is
mentioned in a dedication to the Great Queen herself. Something that
Rowse, misreading Forman notes on Emilia attributed to Emilia
herself. Forman made it clear that she had it hard during her youth,
not very likely if the Queen was involved! Other problems are the
clear attraction to women, with more poems dedicated to them,
something that Emilia could be in all honesty, not be interested in,
putting it crudely she was a ‘slut’ by modern standards. She for
instance calls Susan, the Countess of Kent, “the
mistress of my youth”
So
Emilia Lanier did not write these poems, William Shakespeare did! How
did Lanier’s name come to be on them, you say? Again it could be
just the publisher trying to make money from poetry scraps that had
come into his possession. Some clearly date from earlier than 1611.
But why put Lanier’s name on it? Personally I think the most likely
explanation is she was given them as a present from William himself.
As I’m convinced she was one of his actresses, and as shown in a
previous chapter had the royal backing to be one. Simon Forman’s
notes also back this up oddly! His only real description of Emilia is
that she has a mole on her neck. But he backs this up and the way he
does it is by saying “just like Imogen
in Cymbeline.”21
Of course Simon didn’t figure out
that she was the actress. Nobody has till now! And we could lump her
as a prostitute as well, more than likely. Let’s face it she sleep
with anyone then, that’s how she got the texts. We find later she
is desperately short of money, from Forman’s notes, and must have
sold them off to a publisher under her own name. The volume is
suppressed for being blasphemous, it breaks the 1606 rules for a
start, plus other references which were way beyond what Stuart
society would have tolerated. The way it avoid detection as to the
true writer, is that Emilia added some gender changes and some small
details. This was easy for she was blessed by knowing more about
Shakespeare than his wife probably.
It
reveals even more important details about Shakespeare (let alone the
fact he’s a feminist) than his works do. He makes it clear in this
book, which Elizabeth wrote for him. That her death he took
personally, with only the hope that Queen Anne would raise his ‘sad
dejected muse’ and to her/his
daughter Elizabeth (written later) Liz’s ‘first-fruits
of a woman’s wit.’ So maybe he
did consider letting somebody know of the late Queen’s part in his
works. William then tells us that he had known a long time Lady
Arbella Stuart, the nice of Mary, Queen of Scots, also both connected
to Bess of 
Bard the Idol of women
Arbella was not the only one Shakespeare fancied, for the Mary Herbert Countess of Pembroke, Lucy
Then how did the Gentry come to rise and
fall?
Or who is he that very rightly can
distinguish of his birth or tell at all
in what mean state his ancestors have been
Before
some one of worth did honour win (Him)23
Then to
add to that he writes more cryptic lines, which must mean he did
father King James’ children, if you put emphasis on the word
“successors”.
Whose successors although they bear his name
possessing not the riches of his mind
How do we know they spring out of the same
True stock of honour being not of that kind?
Actually
he was hoping that the Countess of Dorset would defend his work from
the ‘Scandal the
world can frame.’
She did a good job if she did,
because it was censored and the world (till now) knew nothing! He
then finishes this piece with something everyone knows! ‘For
well you know this world is but a stage....’ 24
Most
of the rest of the poems attack men for not treating women right.
Quote more information on Shakespeare’s list of famous women and
reveals that he was a tradesman’s son, which we know. Then he
mentions the place Cookham, where something important happened to him
early on in his life. Then you can guess what that would be when I
tell you it’s very near Windsor!
The bigger
question is how did Shakespeare get away with being involved with
married women? To some extent this might have been his charm, or “his
way with the ladies” as many womanising men say. There’s a much
simpler answer. As most historians of the period will tell you
marriages were not love matches, but property contracts and securing
wealth and status. Most families, as in many arranged marriage
proposals, believed that affection between husband and wife would
come about in time. In some cases it may have done, in a few the
affection was there already, as with the Shrewsburys. In practice it
never came about and children didn’t follow on. Very common in
aristocratic males was the tendencies to have a mistress, who would
have been an unsuitable candidate (for various reasons) as a wife.
Most of these mistress’ were already around, before the arranged
marriage. Women generally didn’t have these kind of dalliances
before marriage, due to a condition report on their virginity, being
required sometimes to assure purity of bloodlines. Afterwards it
didn’t matter their being no tests, only if the child looked
different from the husband, however that can happen anyway. Crafty
William exploited this, there’s no reason to suppose the husband
was bothered and he might have paid the bard for his discretion. In
some cases the married couple might have hated each others guts, so
Shakespeare was doing them both a favour for allowing the line to
continue.
The commoner sort of Royal
Nevertheless, if William Shakespeare did father Elizabeth Stuart, the only one of the children that has lead to surviving descendents, then it means that the line of Mary Stuart died out with her son. The other implication is that the descent of the Royal line is Anglo-Danish and not Scottish-Danish! Also that the Royal blood is part Royal and part commoner!! However the Royal Blood was part commoner, before William Shakespeare couldn’t keep his trousers on with Anne of Denmark. It turns out that Edward IV’s mother had it off with an archer. The bastard son inherited the thrown and Shakespeare mention’s this in the play about him. Thus the archer’s line dies out with James I or VI. To be replaced by another commoner!
1
When he was a child, Liz thought he would be safer in England.
12
Dr Geoffrey Dean has completely ruled out the disease in both Stuart
and Hanoverians lines. Holmes P68.
22
Norrington PP61-71. Ruth, however corrects the spelling of Albion to
Albian in the ‘crazy’ letter, there are a number of words
uncorrected and an ‘author’ remark.
No comments:
Post a Comment