Shakespeare letter fragment - wonderful example of detailed research

[UKgirl]

In 1978, a fragment of a 17th century letter was discovered that could hold information relating to the wife of William Shakespeare. Until this year, it received almost no attention.

However, on April 23, the anniversary of the birth of William Shakespeare, new research into this piece of paper was published. The basic details received wide coverage in the media:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/apr/23/shakespeare-did-not-leave-his-wife-anne-in-stratford-letter-fragment-suggests

But it is the full detailed research findings by Professor Matthew Steggle, which he has published online as open access, which are absolutely fascinating and present the perfect example of how family history research should be/could be/can be carried out:

"The Shakspaires of Trinity Lane: A Possible Shakespeare Life-Record"

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17450918.2025.2481116?src=exp-la

UKgirl

[goldie61]

Thanks for posting UKgirl.

I love how these things can turn up hundreds of years later, and (possibly), cast a whole new light on long-held suppositions.

That will put the cat among the pigeons! 

[Lucy2]

Thank you for sharing these links, UKgirl.   

I much enjoyed reading through the research findings of Professor Matthew Steggle ... indeed, some valuable "lessons" therein.

   ~  Lu

[UKgirl]

goldie61
Yes – literally hundreds of years later. It’s astonishing, isn’t it?

By sheer coincidence, two weeks ago I borrowed a novel from the library called “Hamnet” by Maggie O’Farrell published in 2020. (Hamnet being the son of Shakespeare who died very young). Despite the title, the focus of the novel is actually the wife of Shakespeare, mother of Hamnet.

When this news item regarding Shakespeare's wife was announced on the radio this week, the above author was interviewed. Her excitement was palpable. My ears pricked up, which made me look for the exact details online.

Lucy2
Glad that you too enjoyed reading through the research details. It is a bit of a long read, but an excellent example of how to proceed, painstakingly, step by step, with no assumptions.

How very generous of Professor Matthew Steggle to publish this as open access!

It may act as an encouragement that with patience, it really is possible for so much to be eventually gleaned from so little, if only we don't give up. A worthwhile lesson for us all.

UKgirl

[goldie61]

goldie61
Yes – literally hundreds of years later. It’s astonishing, isn’t it?

By sheer coincidence, two weeks ago I borrowed a novel from the library called “Hamnet” by Maggie O’Farrell published in 2020. (Hamnet being the son of Shakespeare who died very young). Despite the title, the focus of the novel is actually the wife of Shakespeare, mother of Hamnet.

When this news item regarding Shakespeare's wife was announced on the radio this week, the above author was interviewed. Her excitement was palpable. My ears pricked up, which made me look for the exact details online.

I've read that book too Ukgirl
I think it's the one where  the author calls her 'Agnes Hathaway' all the way through, which jarred with me a little each time I read it, after always knowing her as 'Anne'.
Evidently in her father's will she was bequeathed 6 pounds 13 shillings and 4 pence at her marriage, and he named her as 'Agnes', so that's why she used that name.
A good read through.
I can see why Maggie O'Farrell would be very excited at this discovery of these fragments of a letter. It will, (could), change the whole outlook of not only Anne, but also the wider implications for the life of Shakespeare himself. 

[UKgirl]

Yes, that’s the book. I too was taken aback by the name Agnes.

It seems that she was born in 1556, her father died in 1581 and she married in 1582, therefore she was already an adult woman when she was named in her father’s will, and one can presume that a father would not make a mistake with his own daughter’s name.

Perhaps she just did not like the name "Agnes" and decided to call herself "Anne" from the time of her marriage? Or perhaps William did not like the name "Agnes"?

Although Anne/Agnes went on to have 3 children, in those days only the father’s name was given in the baptism records, so her name would not have appeared. Accordingly, there may be very few records with her actual name on; the Marriage License Bond, William’s Will and her own Burial Record? And in all those instances, it would not have been her who supplied her name.

I wonder if the “G” was silent in those days? Maggie O’Farrell seems to suggest that, when she wrote in the book (QUOTE): "Agnes. Said differently from how it might be written on the page, with that near-hidden, secret G. Ann-yis. Agn-yez."

It's a bit interesting, isn't it?

UKgirl

[goldie61]

Yep! Very interesting. 

I looked up her burial record - it's all on line.
It just says 'Mrs Shakespeare'! How very helpful!

The marriage bond says 'Anne Hathway', but as you've probably read about before, the actual entry in the Bishop's register says 'Anne Whateley' and 'at 'Temple Grafton'.

It all leaves room for scholars to surmise what they will from flawed evidence.
If only we had a time machine! 

[horselydown86]

I think it's the one where  the author calls her 'Agnes Hathaway' all the way through, which jarred with me a little each time I read it, after always knowing her as 'Anne'.
Evidently in her father's will she was bequeathed 6 pounds 13 shillings and 4 pence at her marriage, and he named her as 'Agnes', so that's why she used that name.

Anne, Annys and Agnes were used totally interchangeably around the late 1500s to early 1600s, in at least some parts of England.

It seems that whichever was used at any time was down to the preference of the vicar.

ADDED:

I should mention that Avis, Avicia and variants are a separate name.

[UKgirl]

goldie61
Well spotted. I just had a look at the Burial Register, and you are correct, no actual name is given.
Simply: Mrs Shakspeare
https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/file/dr2431-burial-register-folio-51-verso

Also in William Shakespeare’s Will, again no actual name given.
Simply: my wife

horselydown86
That’s very interesting about the names – I was unaware of that. In 2007 Germaine Greer published the book “Shakespeare’s Wife”. She kindly allowed the New York Times to print an excerpt from Chapter 1 where she lists some examples of the interchangeable names.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/chapters/first-chapter-shakespeares-wife.html

e.g.
Richard Hathaway left a sheep to a great-niece he calls Agnes, though according to the parish record she was actually christened Annys; in 1600 she was buried as Ann.
Theatre manager Philip Henslowe called his wife Agnes in his will but she was buried as Ann.
Ann's brother Bartholomew called a daughter Annys, but she was buried as Ann.
William Gilbert alias Higgs who wrote Hathaway's will married Agnes Lyncian, but she was buried as Ann Gilbert.

“Buried as Ann” seems to be the common denominator, and the article explains why.

UKgirl