70 of 84 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
OXFORD, June 27, 2003
By A Customer
This review is from: Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I (Paperback)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
41 of 50 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Preposterous?, September 22, 2004
This review is from: Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I (Paperback)
Is this book preposterous? Maybe. Yet those the book concerns lived in preposterous times. Times when a monarch ended an adulterous marriage with the axe, or burned hundreds at the stake for professing a different religion. Or when one could be fined or pilloried for wearing clothes considered above his or her social status.
Men and women then, as now, felt strong hormonal impulses that often led to adulterous relationships. Anne Boleyn supposedly. Catherine Howard decidedly.
Some women were married in their early or mid teens;and some were of the nobility. Prince Arthur Tudor was 15 when he married Catherine of Aragon, 16. Catherine Willoughby was 13 when she married her guardian, 48-year-old Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. They had two sons.
So it's not so difficult to imagine that 14-year-old Elizabeth Tudor's virginity could have been compromised by her amorous 40-year-old "step-father" who had proposed marriage when she was 13. And that she was sent to the country to quietly give birth. And that her child was given over to be raised as the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere. Perhaps it reads like cheap fiction, but it's within the likelihood and lives of the nobility of that day.
At least some Oxfordians have the problem, however, of reconciling this with what is known as the "Tudor Rose" theory, which asserts that the 3rd Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, fair youth of the sonnets, was the son of Elizabeth and Edward de Vere,Elizabeth's son. Season this further with the fact that Southampton was urged by William Cecil, Lord Burghley, to marry Elizabeth Vere, daughter of his son-in-law Edward de Vere and his wife Anne (Cecil) Vere. All of this reminds one of the 1950s tune "I'm My Own Grandpa."
But what Mr. Streitz needs to pay attention to in any future editions is editing. There are some egregious errors (EEs), especially for someone with a master's degree from the University of Chicago, albeit an MBA.
EE-1: Prince Arthur is said to have been married to Catherine of Aragon for two years before he died. If that were the case the Pope would never have allowed Catherine to marry Henry. In fact the marriage of Arthur and Catherine lasted less than five months, during which time it was claimed that Arthur was too feeble to perform. Thus, on the grounds the marriage had not been consummated, the Pope granted dispensation and Catherine was allowed to marry Henry.
EE-2: The sentence, "The ability to emphasize (sic) with another's feelings, emotions, or pain was a quite underveloped quantity in the Elizabethan personality."
EE-3: The phrase, "professors of Greek and Roman." Would not Greek and Latin be better?
EE-4: In referring to an act listed in the Statutes of the Realm, there is the sentence: "It may have been passed in April... or it could have been past (sic) later."
EE-5: And then there's the phrase "heir to the thrown," which is not meant to be a pun.
Hopefully in the next edition, should there be one, Mr. Streitz and editors will take a closer look at the proofs. When dealing with a topic that strains credulity, as this does, great care should be taken not to create unneeded and avoidable distractions that cast greater doubt on the author's credentials.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Good for a laugh, April 25, 2010
This review is from: Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I (Paperback)
This is a book that will appeal to deranged fantasists everywhere, and provide a good many laughs to the more rational. The fact that its bizarre claims are supported by a complete absence of evidence of any kind will only add to its charm and appeal for those who wear tinfoil helmets to prevent aliens from messing with their brainwaves -- after all, the best evidence of an effective government conspiracy and cover-up is precisely the absence of such evidence.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
