The Shakespeare blog
Judith Quiney, Shakespeare’s forgotten daughter
The corner showing Judith Quiney’s house in Stratford
On the 10th February 1616 Shakespeare’s younger daughter Judith married a local man, Thomas Quiney. At the start of 1616 her impending marriage must have been the cause of celebration in the family. Shakespeare first saw his lawyer to draft his will in January 1616. This is often taken to mean he was already ill, but with his daughters married or betrothed it was also a good time to ensure they would be provided for.
Things started to go wrong soon after that first session with the lawyer. In the first drafting of the will, he is mentioned specifically with a bequest “vnto my sonne in L[aw]”. The marriage occurred outside the usual period for marriages (as Shakespeare’s own had been). In Shakespeare’s case it’s generally thought this was because Anne Hathaway was already pregnant. This wasn’t the case with Judith, so why was there such a hurry? Shakespeare’s marriage had been arranged by license from Worcester, but in Judith’s case no license was granted. Marrying without going through the proper procedures was frowned on, and both Judith and Thomas were excommunicated. None of this sounds like respectable behaviour, but worse was to come. Thomas might well have been in a hurry to marry Judith, because after the marriage it soon came out that he had previously had a mistress, Margaret Wheeler, who was pregnant with his child. To make matters worse, both Margaret and her baby died. Thomas was tried by the church court and sentenced to stand in front of the congregation of Holy Trinity church clad in a white sheet, for three Sundays.
Shakespeare saw his lawyer again on 25 March. One of the significant changes is that the reference to Thomas Quiney was struck out and Judith’s name was inserted instead. Judith was to inherit £100, a cottage, and if she or her children were alive after three years a further £150 of which she should receive the interest, giving her and any children she might have an independent income. She also received Shakespeare’s “broad silver gilt bole”.
Part of Shakespeare’s will in which he mentions Susanna and John Hall who inherited most of his estate
Very little is known about Judith, but her life seems to have been full of disappointments. As far as we know she received no education, and lived in Stratford all her life. She and her twin brother Hamnet were born in 1585, but Hamnet died in August 1596. His death must have affected the whole family profoundly, not least Judith herself. This was the first of many sad events in her life, the next of which was the humiliation surrounding her marriage. She can not have been unaware of the comparison with her older sister Susanna who had already made a successful marriage to a highly-respected doctor and had a daughter. In Shakespeare’s will, it’s Susanna who inherits most of Shakespeare’s wealth including his house New Place.
Shakespeare himself died in April 1616, only a few weeks after Judith’s marriage and humiliation. In November Judith herself had a baby son, who was christened “Shakespeare”, after her father. The baby lived for only six months, dying in May 1617. Infant mortality was high, and several of Shakespeare’s own siblings had died as babies. Later, in 1618 and 1620, Judith had two more sons, Richard and Thomas. These two boys survived childhood but died within weeks of each other in 1639, aged 19 and 21, probably of plague. So Judith outlived all of her children, being buried on 9 February 1662 aged 77, while her husband died in 1662 or 1663. Thomas Quiney was by profession a vintner and tobacconist, and later became a leading member of the town’s governing council, holding its highest office, Chamberlain, in 1621 and 1622. But unlike her sister and brother-in-law who had graves in the chancel of the church, Judith and Thomas were buried in the churchyard, the site is now unknown.
Judith Quiney’s house as it was in 1903
The house in which Judith and Thomas Quiney lived still stands, but unlike Susannah’s house Hall’s Croft Shakespeare’s Birthplace or the site of his grand house New Place it isn’t a museum. It used to be known as “The Cage”, and stands in the very centre of town at the junction of High Street and Bridge Street. In its time this building has been a prison, the “Shakespeare View Store”, the town’s Tourist Information Centre and now, a shop selling Crabtree and Evelyn toiletries.
In 1662 the newly-appointed vicar of Stratford, John Ward, noted in his diary his intention to visit Mrs Quiney. There’s some debate about this because it seems Judith had already died by the time he took up his post, but since Ward elsewhere noted his interest in Shakespeare it can be assumed that he had hoped to find out more about her father. This is without doubt one of the biggest lost opportunities in the history of Shakespeare biography. Judith was 31 when her father died and even at the great age of 77 would surely have had memories she could have shared. It’s just another of the factors that makes Judith Shakespeare’s story so intriguing.
4 Responses to Judith Quiney, Shakespeare’s forgotten daughter
- Reg Mitchell says:February 13, 2014 at 11:12 am
Thank you Sylvia. Judith was indeed an unfortunate lady, but much of the accepted knowledge about her much-maligned husband is, in my opinion, false. The affair between Thomas and Margaret Wheeler never took place in my view. The entry in the ACTS book is a fabrication, probably made in the first half of the 20th century, as a means of ‘finding’ a reason for the changes to the will. A more likely practical reason for the changes, is that Thomas lost his case suing his wine supplier, and it was necessary and urgent, that the bailiffs could not get their hands on part of the Shakespeare estate willed to him and his wife. Shakespeare and his father before him, knew only too well the problems with bailiffs from their own experiences!
If you want to learn more about my research, I can send you a copy of my paper ‘Thos: Quiney – Gent’, which sets out my reasons for making these comments.
- Sylvia Morris says:February 13, 2014 at 10:05 pm
Thank you for your unconventional view of the controversy surrounding Thomas Quiney, which I’ve never heard before. My information source is the book I’m sure you know, Shakespeare and the Bawdy Court of Stratford written by E R C Brinkworth who was a recognised authority on the Ecclesiastical Courts.
- Reg Mitchell says:February 15, 2014 at 10:20 am
Yes, I have a copy, and have read it from cover to cover. But, after much thought and research in the archives, (some with the help of Mairi Macdonald) I have finally reached the conclusion that the entry about Thomas Quiney is false, for a number of reasons.
- Barbie says:September 15, 2014 at 12:52 am
Thank you Sylvia
Yes, I have a copy, and have read it from cover to cover. But,after much thought and research in the archives, (some with the help of Mairi MacDonald) I have finally reached the conclusion that the entry about Thomas Quiney is false, for a number of reasons.
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to the blog
Search the site
- Shakespeare on the centenary of the Armistice
- Cicely Berry, Head of Voice for the RSC
- Hall, Barton and Goodwin: three grand old men of the RSC
- Shakespeare and the People’s Vote
- Shakespeare and the strangers: Refugee Week
- Legacy (648)
- Plays and Poems (171)
- Shakespeare on Stage (285)
- Shakespeares World (310)
- Sources (41)
- Stratford-upon-Avon (297)
- Uncategorized (2)
- Mairi Macdonald on Cicely Berry, Head of Voice for the RSC
- Mairi Macdonald on Roger Howells remembered
- Karin Brown on Roger Howells remembered
TagsA Midsummer Nights Dream
As You Like it
Folger Shakespeare Library
Holy Trinity Church
King Edward VI School
Loves Labours Lost
Romeo and Juliet
Royal Shakespeare Company
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust
Shakespeare Club of Stratford-upon-Avon
Shakespeare Memorial Theatre
Simon Russell Beale
The Merchant of Venice
The Merry Wives of Windsor
The Winters Tale
More blog posts
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
The Shakespeare blog
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Stratford-upon-Avon , Warwickshire, England
|Baptised||26 February 1589|
|Died||1662 or 1663 (aged 73 or 74)|
Stratford-upon-Avon , Warwickshire, England
|Occupation||Vintner and tobacconist|
|Known for||The husband of William Shakespeare ‘s daughter|
Thomas Quiney ( baptised 26 February 1589 – c. 1662 or 1663)  was the husband of William Shakespeare ‘s daughter Judith Shakespeare , and a vintner and tobacconist in Stratford-upon-Avon . Quiney held several municipal offices in the corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon, the highest being chamberlain in 1621 and 1622,   but was also fined for various minor offences.
In 1616, Quiney married Judith Shakespeare. The marriage took place during a season when a special licence was required by the church, and the couple had failed to obtain one, leading to Quiney’s brief excommunication . Quiney was also summoned before the Bawdy Court fewer than two months after the wedding to answer charges of “carnal copulation” with a Margaret Wheeler, who died in childbirth. Scholars believe that as a result of these events William Shakespeare altered his will to favour his other daughter, Susanna Hall , and excluded Quiney from his inheritance.
Judith and Thomas had three children: Shakespeare, Richard, and Thomas. Shakespeare Quiney died at six months of age, and neither Richard nor Thomas lived past 21. The death of Judith’s last child led to legal wrangling over William Shakespeare’s will that lasted until 1652. Scholars speculate that Thomas Quiney may have died in 1662 or 1663 when the burial records are incomplete. 
- 1 Birth and early life
- 2 Business and municipal offices
- 3 Marriage
- 4 Chapel Lane, Atwood’s and The Cage
- 5 William Shakespeare’s last will and testament
- 6 Children
- 7 Death
- 8 References
- 9 Bibliography
Birth and early life[ edit ]
Quiney family coat of arms . “Or, on a bend sable, three trefoils slipped argent.“ 
Thomas Quiney was born in Stratford-upon-Avon and baptised on 26 February 1589 in Holy Trinity Church . He was the son of Richard and Elizabeth Quiney. He had 10 siblings, among them a Richard Quiney who was a grocer in London, Mary Quiney who later married Richard Watts, the vicar of Harbury, and Elizabeth Quiney who married William Chandler.  There is no record of Thomas Quiney’s attendance at the local school , but he had sufficient education to write short passages in French, run a business, and hold several municipal offices in his life.   
Business and municipal offices[ edit ]
Quiney was a vintner and dealt in tobacco. He held the lease to a house known as “Atwood’s” for the purpose of running a tavern, and later traded houses with his brother-in-law, William Chandler, for the larger house known as “The Cage” where he set up his vintner’s shop in the upper half. He is recorded as selling wine to the corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon as late as 1650.   
Facsimile of Quiney’s couplet in French for the accounts of 1622–3. 
He was a man of some education, with knowledge of French and calligraphy. In signing his accounts for 1621 and 1622 as chamberlain he decorated them with a couplet in French from a romance by Mellin de Saint-Gelais .   Quiney writes “Bien heureux est celui qui pour devenir sage, Qui pour le mal d’autrui fait son apprentissage” but the original is “Heureux celui qui pour devenir sage, Du mal d’autrui fait son apprentissage“. The original translates into English as “Happy is he who to become wise, serves his apprenticeship from other men’s troubles” but Quiney’s version “… is ungrammatical and without sense”.   
Facsimile of Quiney’s signature “with flourishes” from the accounts of 1622–3. 
He was a well-respected man in the borough, and was elected a burgess and constable in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1617. In 1621 and 1662 he was acting Chamberlain . In signing his accounts for 1622–3, he did so “with flourishes”,  but the records show that the council voted them “imperfect”. Quiney did not attend this meeting, but he did attend the later meeting where the accounts were passed, so they appear to have needed further explanation.  
Quiney’s reputation was slightly spotted; he was fined for swearing and for “suffering townsmen to tipple in his house”, and was at one point in danger of prosecution for “dispensing unwholesome and adulterated wine”.  
Marriage[ edit ]
Holy Trinity Church, Stratford upon Avon, where Thomas was married. View from the opposite bank of the River Avon.
On 10 February 1616, Thomas Quiney married Judith Shakespeare , William Shakespeare ‘s daughter, in Holy Trinity Church. The assistant vicar, Richard Watts, who later married Quiney’s sister Mary, probably officiated.  The wedding took place during the Lenten season, which was prohibited. In 1616 Lent started on 23 January, Septuagesima Sunday , and ended on 7 April, the Sunday after Easter. The marriage therefore required a special licence, issued by the Bishop of Worcester , which the couple had failed to obtain.  A Walter Wright of Stratford was cited for marrying without either banns or licence, so since Quiney was only cited for marrying without the required licence it is presumed that they had posted banns in church.  The infraction was a minor one, apparently caused by the minister, as three other couples were also wed that February. Quiney was nevertheless summoned by Walter Nixon to appear before the Consistory court in Worcester .  (This same Walter Nixon was later involved in a Star Chamber case and was found guilty of forging signatures and taking bribes ).  Quiney failed to appear by the required date. The register recorded the judgement, which was excommunication , on or about 12 March 1616.  It is unknown if Judith was also excommunicated, but in any case the punishment did not last long. In November of the same year they were back in church for the baptism of their firstborn child.  
The marriage did not begin well: Quiney had recently impregnated another woman, Margaret Wheeler,  who was to die in childbirth along with the child and was buried on 15 March 1616. On 26 March 1616, Quiney appeared before the Bawdy Court , which dealt, among other things, with “whoredom and uncleanliness”.  Confessing in open court to “carnal copulation” with Margaret Wheeler, he submitted himself for correction.  He was sentenced to open penance “in a white sheet (according to custom)” before the congregation on three Sundays. He also had to admit to his crime, this time wearing ordinary clothes, before the Minister of Bishopton in Warwickshire.  The first part of the sentence was remitted, essentially letting him off with a five- shilling fine to be given to the parish’s poor. Since Bishopton only had a chapel, he was spared any public humiliation.  
Chapel Lane, Atwood’s and The Cage[ edit ]
Where the Quineys lived after being married is unknown. Judith owned her father’s cottage on Chapel Lane, Stratford, while Thomas had held, since 1611, the lease on a tavern called “Atwood’s” on High Street.  The cottage later passed from Judith to her sister as part of the settlement in their father’s will. In July 1616 Thomas swapped houses with his brother-in-law, William Chandler, moving his vintner’s shop to the upper half of a house at the corner of High Street and Bridge Street.  Known as “The Cage”, it is the house traditionally associated with Judith Quiney.   In the 20th century The Cage was for a time a Wimpy restaurant before being turned into the Stratford Information Office. 
The Cage provides further insight into why Shakespeare would not have trusted Judith’s husband. Around 1630 Quiney tried to sell the lease on the house but was prevented by his kinsmen.  In 1633, to protect the interests of Judith and the children, the lease was signed over to the trust of three relatives: John Hall, Susanna’s husband; Thomas Nash , the husband of Judith’s niece; and Richard Watts, vicar of nearby Harbury , who was Quiney’s brother-in-law and who had officiated at Thomas and Judith’s wedding.  Eventually, in November 1652, the lease to The Cage ended up in the hands of Thomas’ eldest brother, Richard Quiney, a grocer in London.  
William Shakespeare’s last will and testament[ edit ]
Nash’s House, standing adjacent to the site of New Place
The inauspicious beginnings of Judith’s marriage, in spite of her husband and his family being otherwise unexceptionable,  has led to speculation that this was the cause for William Shakespeare’s hastily altered last will and testament.  He first summoned his lawyer, Francis Collins, in January 1616. On 25 March he made further alterations, probably because he was dying and because of his concerns about Quiney.  In the first bequest of the will there had been a provision “vnto my sonne in L[aw]“; but “sonne in L[aw]” was then struck out, with Judith’s name inserted in its stead.  To this daughter he bequeathed £ 100 “in discharge of her marriage porcion“; another £50 if she were to relinquish the Chapel Lane cottage; and, if she or any of her children were still alive at the end of three years following the date of the will, a further £150, of which she was to receive the interest but not the principal .  This money was explicitly denied to Thomas Quiney unless he were to bestow on Judith lands of equal value. In a separate bequest, Judith was given “my broad silver gilt bole“.  
Finally, for the bulk of his estate, which included his main house, ” New Place “, his two houses on Henley Street and various lands in and around Stratford, Shakespeare had set up an entail . His estate was bequeathed, in descending order of choice, to the following: 1) his daughter, Susanna Hall; 2) upon Susanna’s death, “to the first sonne of her bodie lawfullie yssueing & to the heires Males of the bodie of the saied first Sonne lawfullie yssueing“; 3) to Susanna’s second son and his male heirs; 4) to Susanna’s third son and his male heirs; 5) to Susanna’s “ffourth … ffyfth sixte & Seaventh sonnes” and their male heirs; 6) to Elizabeth , Susanna and John Hall ‘s firstborn, and her male heirs; 7) to Judith and her male heirs; or 8) to whatever heirs the law would normally recognise.  This elaborate entail is usually taken to indicate that Thomas Quiney was not to be entrusted with Shakespeare’s inheritance, although some have speculated that it may simply indicate that Susanna was the favoured child.  
Children[ edit ]
Judith and Thomas Quiney had three children: Shakespeare (baptised 23 November 1616 — buried 8 May 1617); Richard (baptised 9 February 1618 — buried 6 February 1639); and Thomas (baptised 23 January 1620 — buried 28 January 1639).  Shakespeare was named for his mother’s father. Richard’s name was common among the Quineys: his other grandfather and an uncle were both named Richard.  
Shakespeare Quiney died at six months of age.  Richard and Thomas Quiney were buried within a month of each other; they were 19 and 21 years old, respectively.  The deaths of all of Judith’s children brought on new legal consequences. The entail on her father’s inheritance led Susanna, along with her daughter and son-in-law, to make a settlement, by use of a rather elaborate legal device, for the inheritance of her own branch of the family.  Legal wrangling continued for another thirteen years, until 1652. 
Death[ edit ]
Of Thomas Quiney’s fate the records show little. It is speculated that he may have died in 1662 or 1663 when the parish burial records are incomplete.   He certainly had a nephew in London, who by this time held the lease to The Cage.
References[ edit ]
- ^ Chambers, Edmund Kerchever (1930). William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. ii. p.4, 7.
- ^ a b c d e Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 294.
He held several municipal offices: in 1617 he was named burgess and then constable; in 1621 and 1622 the corporation appointed him chamberlain, his pinnacle of local recognition. Quiney signed his account of 1622–3 with flourishes, and pretentiously ornamented it with a couplet in French from a romance by Saint-Gelais. Unimpressed, the council voted the account ‘imperfect’ in his absence, but later passed it. Quiney, no scholar, made a hash of the quotation. […] The corporation never thought highly enough of Quiney to make him an alderman.
- ^ a b Eccles, Mark (1963). Shakespeare in Warwickshire. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press. p. 140.
Thomas Quiney was chosen burgess and constable in 1617 and chamberlain in 1621 and 1622, heading his second account with a couplet in French from the poet Saint-Gelais.
- ^ a b Eccles, Mark (1963). Shakespeare in Warwickshire. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press. p. 141.
Thomas may have died in 1662 or 1663, when there is a gap in the register.
- ^ Chambers, Edmund Kerchever (1930). William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. ii. p. 104.
The family bore arms, Or, on a bend sable, three trefoils slipped argent, said by French 389 to be those of Quiney of Staffordshire, from whom they may have come.
- ^ Chambers, Edmund Kerchever (1930). William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. ii. p.104.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Honan, Park (2000). Shakespeare: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 391–398.
- ^ a b Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 292.
Thomas became a vintner in Stratford; we hear of him selling wine to the corporation in 1608. Three years later he leased, for use as a tavern, the little house called ‘Atwood’s’ near the top of the High Street, next door to his mother.
- ^ a b Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 294.
In July 1616 Thomas exchanged houses with his brother-in-law William Chandler, and moved into the more spacious and imposing structure called The Cage at the corner of the High Street and Bridge Street. There, in the upper half, Quiney set up his vintner’s shop, and also dealt in tobacco.
- ^ a b c Halliwell-Phillipps, James Orchard (1885). Outlines of the life of Shakespeare. London: Mssrs. Longmans, Green, and Co. pp. I. 217.
- ^ Fripp, Edgar Innes (1974). Master Richard Quyny, bailiff of Stratford-upon-Avon: And friend of William Shakespeare. AMS Press. pp. 206–7. ISBN 978-0-404-02621-9 .
- ^ McCrea, Scott (2005). The Case For Shakespeare. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 233. ISBN 978-0-275-98527-1 .
- ^ Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 295.
He sued about a shipment of wine from Bristol, and was fined trifling sums for swearing and suffering townsmen to tipple in his house, and was once in danger of prosecution for dispensing unwholesome and adulterated wine.
- ^ a b c d Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 292.
[Thomas] came from an unexceptionable family. […] On 10 February 1616 ‘Tho[mas] Queeny’ was wed ‘to Judith Shakspere’, the assistant vicar Richard Watts probably officiating—he signed the marriage register this month. (Watts later married Quiney’s sister Mary.) […] Because the ceremony took place during the Lenten prohibited season that in 1616 began on 28 January (Septuagesima Sunday) and ended on April 7 (the Sunday after Easter), the couple should have secured a special licence from the Bishop of Worcester. They did not do so, although presumably they published banns in the parish church.
- ^ a b c d Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 293.
Without a licence the minister was at fault in conducting the service. […] Thomas and Judith were cited to the consistory court in Worcester Cathedral. Thomas did not come on the appointed day, and was excommunicated. Possibly Judith suffered the same fate […]. The offence was not serious. Others married in Lent—three weddings took place in Holy Trinity that February—and the Quineys may have just [fallen] victim to an apparitor hungry for a fee. Walter Nixon, who summoned them, [later faced] accusations in Star Chamber of taking bribes and [forgery]. The excommunication […] lasted only a short while, for before the year was out the Quineys were at the font to have their first-born christened in Stratford church.
- ^ a b c d e Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 293–294.
Before marrying, [Thomas] had got a Margaret Wheeler with child […]. [A] month after the […] wedding, the unfortunate woman died in childbirth, and her infant with her. The parish register records both burials on 15 March. […] ‘whoredom and uncleanness’ […] fell within the purview of the […] bawdy court […]. [The] apparitor Richard Greene […] summoned [Thomas]. The act book records the hearing and sentence on Tuesday, 26 March. In open court Thomas confessed to having had carnal copulation with [Margaret Wheeler], and submitted himself to correction. The judge, vicar John Rogers, sentenced [him] to perform open penance in a white sheet, according to custom, in the church on three successive Sundays before the whole congregation. But the penalty was remitted. In effect Thomas got off for 5s […] for the use of the poor of the parish, and the vicar ordered him to acknowledge his crime, in ordinary attire, before the minister of Bishopton. […] Bishopton had no church of its own, only a chapel; so Quiney was spared public humiliation.
- ^ a b Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 5.
- ^ a b c Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 295.
Around 1630 he tried to sell the lease of The Cage, but his kinsmen stopped him, and in 1633 assigned the lease in trust to a triumvirate consisting of Dr. Hall, Hall’s son-in-law Thomas Nash, and Richard Watts, now Quiney’s brother-in-law and the vicar of Harbury. This move protected the interests of Judith and the children. Obviously Thomas was not to be trusted. In November 1652 The Cage lease was made over to Richard Quiney, the London grocer.
- ^ a b Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 297.
During the winter of 1616 Shakespeare summoned his lawyer Francis Collins […]. […] Revisions were necessitated by the marriage of Judith, with its aftermath of the Margaret Wheeler affair. The lawyer came on 25 March. […] Shakespeare was dying that March, although he would linger for another month.
- ^ a b c d e Chambers, Edmund Kerchever (1930). William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. ii. pp. 169–180.
- ^ a b c d Chambers, Edmund Kerchever (1930). William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. ii. pp. 811, 104.
- ^ Chambers, Edmund Kerchever (1930). William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. ii. p. 179.
Judith Quiney’s last child died in February 1639. Steps were taken to bar the entail. A settlement of ‘the inheritance of William Shakespeere gent. deceased’ was made by Susanna [Hall] and the Nashs on 27 May 1639, and was followed by fines and a fictitious legal action. Possibly Judith was compensated. Her expectation was small, and in fact she predeceased Elizabeth [Hall].
- ^ Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 296.
Thomas does not seem to have ever left Stratford (he was selling wine to the corporation as late as 1650), although the parish register fails to record his burial. Possibly he predeceased his wife, although he may have died in 1662-3, when the burial records are incomplete.
Bibliography[ edit ]
- Chambers, Edmund Kerchever (1930). William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press. OCLC 353406 .
- Chambers, Edmund Kerchever (1970). Sources for a Biography of Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press. OCLC 59179182 .
- Halliwell-Phillipps, James Orchard (1882). Outlines of the life of Shakespeare. London: Longmans. OCLC 5190346 .
- Schoenbaum, Samuel (1991). Shakespeare’s Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-818618-5 .
- Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-505161-0 .
- Shakespeare family
- People excommunicated by the Church of England
- 1589 births
- 17th-century deaths
- People of the Tudor period
- 17th-century English people
- EngvarB from July 2017
- Use dmy dates from July 2017
- Articles with hCards
- Good articles
- Wikipedia articles with SNAC-ID identifiers
- Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers
- This page was last edited on 18 February 2018, at 19:23 (UTC).
- Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ;
- About Wikipedia
- Contact Wikipedia
- Cookie statement
- Mobile view