Sir Francis Bacon

---

BIRTH

Bacon's Biological Father and Brother

Francis Bacon and father Robert Dudley

Bacon's biological father was probably Robert Dudley, The Earl of Leicester, who met Elizabeth I when both were imprisoned in the Tower of London before she became Queen. In 1557 Elizabeth and Dudley secretly married (the first time) in the Tower. One of Elizabeth's first acts after her Accession,was to appoint Robert Dudley Master of the Horse, an honourable and valuable post which gave him a Lodging at the Court and personal attendance on the Queen.

1559 6 Feb--Letter of Count De Feria (Philip's watchdog): regarding behaviour of Elizabeth toward Dudley: "Her Majesty visits him in his Chamber day and night." (18th April) Second letter of Count De Feria: "Sometimes she appears as if she wants to marry him (Arch Duke Ferdinand), and speaks like a woman who will only accept a great Prince; and then they say she is in love with Lord Robert and never lets him leave her."

1560--(Report to Lord Burleigh as to the open assertions of Mother Anne Dowe of Brentwood, concerning the condition of the Queen. She said that the Queen was with child by Robert Dudley. She was sent to prison.)

1560--Sept 12 It is openly reported (See Dic. Nat. Biog.) that the Queen was secretly betrothed to Dudley, and that they were married at Lord Pembroke's House sometime in late September. Cecil, either in appearance or reality, consented to be reconciled to them. November. The Queen's "looks" are quite consistent with a pregnant woman.

1561--Jan 22 -- The Queen was in residence at York Place and had no public engagements or interviews.

Jan. 22 -- - Son Francis Bacon born to Sir Nicholas Bacon and Lady Anne, according to outer records. May have been named after Francois, the little French King who had recently died, leaving his young widow, little Mary Queen of Scots, to her strange destiny.

Francis Bacon is born either at "York House" (i.e. the home of Sir Nicholas Bacon) "or York Place" (i.e. Whitehall, the Queen's Palace), according to the statement of Francis Bacon's Chaplain and Secretary, Dr. Rawley, who took this method of telling the world that Francis Bacon was a Royal Tudor; and that there was a mystery regarding his birth and parentage.

Robert Devereux also known as the Earl of Essex was Queen Elizabeth's second child and Bacon's Tudor brother. Like Bacon, Devereux's father was Robert Dudley, and he was secretly adopted in order to protect the Queen.

1567 November 10 -- Robert Essex born. Outwardly, the son of Lettice Knollys, queen's cousin, married to Walter Hereford, Earl of Essex.

---

The Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret from The Marriage of Elizabeth Tudor by Alfred Dodd

(pp.38-42)

At this time the chief Lady-in-Waiting to Queen Elizabeth was Lady Anne Bacon, wife to Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. If such a child were about to be born to the Queen, and such a birth had to be kept for the moment secret , would it not be natural for her to turn to Lady Bacon, her closest, intimate and greatest friend, for counsel and advice? To save the Queen's honor would it not be the proper and only way of escape for Lady Bacon to mother the child? It would be the most natural thing for her to assume the role of foster-mother with the active connivance of Sir Nicholas. The full dresses of the period would conceal the physical truth regarding Lady Anne no less than the Queen. In any case, some time in January, about four months after the alleged marriage to Dudley, Lady Bacon is supposed to have given birth to a child, afterwards known to history as Francis Bacon. Was she actually the mother? Was he really the child of Sir Nicholas and Lady Bacon?

The open facts seem to indicate that he was not flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone; and that they simply served in the capacity of foster-parents.
Surveying the circumstances as a whole, we can begin with the very pregnant statement made by Dr. Rawley, the first passage on the first page of "Resuscitatio, or Bringing into Public Light Several Pieces Hitherto Sleeping", published 1670 :

"Francis Bacon, the Glory of his Age and Nation, the Adorner and Ornament of Learning, was born in York-House or York-Place in the Strand."
Dr. Rawley was Francis Bacon's Chaplain, Confidant, Personal Friend and Attendant. He was on the Square, a Rosicrosse-Mason, and knew how to write with double meanings. Apart from other proofs, we know this because he uses Masonic phraseology. On page 3 he tells us tht Francis Bacon "had passed the circle of the Liberal Arts." When Dr. Rawley thus tells us that "F.B." was like Prospero, "Master of all the Liberal Arts without a Parallel," the hint is sufficient to indicate that he himself was of the secret Rosicrosse Literary Fraternity, and is speaking under the Rose secrets to those who are "instructed" how to read. (Francis Bacon was the creator of Modern Freemasonry, the Rituals of the Craft and Higher Degrees, and the Founder of the Fraternity as an organization. See Shakespeare, Creator of Freemasonry, by Alfred Dodd)

Francis, Born In The Queen's Palace

Dr. Rawley's opening statement that Francis Bacon "was born in York House or York Place ( he uses italics to draw attention to the phrase) is intended to provoke the reader to ascertain WHERE he was born and who were his parents : For "York House" was the residence of Sir Nicholas Bacon, but York Place was the Queen's Palace, afterwards known as Whitehall. The first sentence, then, raises at once the question acutely : Was Francis a Bacon or a Tudor? Was he born at York House or York Place?

If anyone knew the truth, Dr. Rawley did. He writes openly as near the truth as he dare. There would have been no point in framing such a deliberately cryptic sentence, unless he knew positively that Francis was something other than he seemed---a Prince in hiding and not a commoner. He knew better than anyone else that York House was not York Place and was never known as York Place. York Place was the name of Queen Elizabeth's Palace in the old days. So our investigations begin with a mysterious uncertainty regarding his birth. What we know is that he was born either at the home of Sir Nicholas Bacon or at Queen Elizabeth's Palace. This is the plain statement of his confidential friend and chaplain. We could not wish for higher authority.

There seems to be some uncertainty regarding the actual date of his birth. Dr. Rawley gives it as the 22nd January 1560. As the year then closed on the 25th March, the year was actually 1561, and the actual date the 11th January, "the 22nd being arrived at by altering eleven days to make it new style", says P. Woodward. (The Strange Case of Francis Tidir, p. 41) Basil Montague's Life of Bacon gives the 11th of January 1561. There does not seem to be any real evidence at all of the exact date of birth, though biographers usually assume it to be the 22nd January 1561. On this date there are some formal documents signed by the Queen, but the date on a legal document is not necessarily the day of the signature. Signed documents of this kind about this period do not negative a birth. The known facts are, that she was in residence in York Place and had no public engagements or interviews.

1631 was published in France the first biography of Francis Bacon by one named Pierre Amboise. It contains many enigmatical asides. The following sentences can be construed as covertly suggesting a Royal connection :

"He was born to the Purple and brought up with the expectation of a great career. He employed several years of his youth in travelling France, Italy, and Spain. He saw himself destined one day to hold in his hand, the Helm of the Kingdom."
Here, we again have an apparently inspired utterance which hints that Francis Bacon was born to the Purple of Royalty, and thought himself destined to steer the Kingdom.....
suggestions which cannot be regarded as being apropos to a commoner. We can align these statements with a letter written by Lady Bacon, in which she writes of Francis in these words :

"He was his Father's First Chi..."
The remainder of the word has been blacked out by some unknown hand, like many other of Francis Bacon's letters in which secrets are involved.

James Spedding thinks that "Chi..." must mean "Choice", a guess that is obviously wrong, for Francis was not Sir Nicholas Bacon's "First Choice." He actually left all his money to others. The fragment "Chi..." is palpably the beginning of the word "CHI LD." Lady Bacon is thus leaving a record that Francis was not her son nor her husband's. Sir Nicholas had children by a previous wife, and her own son, Anthony Bacon, was older than Francis : so Lady Bacon is simply stating enigmatically by the phrase, "He was his Father's First CHILD" that the Father of Francis was not Sir Nicholas but someone else... and that he is not a Bacon at all.

If he were not the First Child of Sir Nicholas, and was the First-Born of someone else, we know that it was not at YORK HOUSE where he was born, and that we must look at Dr. Rawley's alternative "YORK PLACE", the Queen's Residence as the place of his birth. He was therefore a Tudor, "Born to the Purple", with the expectation of holding the Helm of the Kingdom, the FIRST Child of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, which carries the corallary that there was more than one child, at least a second one, for Francis was the "First" or eldest, and not the only one.

THE BABE : "MR. FRANCISCUS BACON"

An equally significant fact now comes to light. The child is registered as "MR. Franciscus Bacon" in the Church at St.-Martin-in-the-Fields, London. The actual entry is on the first page in the book and runs :

"1560, 25 Januarie Baptizatus fuit Mr. Franciscus Bacon."
Someone in a different handwriting, written a little later in paler ink, has added :

"filius Dm Nicho : Bacon Magni Anglie Sigilli Custodis."
Now why was the babe registered as "MR."? It was contrary to all customs of registration. Would his actual parents-- if they were really Sir and Lady Nicholas--be likely to dignify a few hours' old baby with the title of "MR."? Sir Nicholas never designated his three baby sons by a former wife as "Mr. Nicholas", "Mr. Nathaniel", "Mr. Edward." Nor did he describe his boy born two years previously to Lady Ann as "Mr. Anthony." It is impossible to think that such a prefix would ever have occurred to them had he been their own child. It is similarly unreasonable to suppose that a nurse or a messenger would do so without specific authorization. It is, on the contrary, easily understandable that if Francis Bacon were really a young Prince, his foster parents would seek to dignify the babe in the only way they could, by giving him an extraordinary title as a covert mark of respect.

It is equally significant that the entry is made, apparently, in the first instance, without the name of the parent being declared. It is only later in the day, and by a different hand, that someone had added, "son of Nicholas Bacon." The "Mr." was deliberately interpolated for a purpose....for some good reason, and no historian has hitherto arisen to tell us the why an the wherefore.

SIR NICHOLAS BACON AS A FOSTER-FATHER
A comtemporary indicates that Sir Nicholas Bacon was a Foster-Father only by the following enigmatical sentence :

"He (Sir Nicholas Bacon) was the Lord Keeper of England and a Father to Francis Bacon."
We thus know that he was not THE father of Francis, but "A father", i.e. he acted towards the child Francis as a father.

A further piece of evidence is given by Mme. D von Kunow in her work, p.13 :

"In the family Genealogy of Nicholas Bacon, Francis was never entered."
This deliberate omission provides very strong positive evidence that Francis Bacon was never regarded as having sprung from the loins of the Bacons. It is a recorded act of omission tantamount to saying :

"He is not our child....He is not of our Line...We were foster-parents only."
On what other grounds could his name be left out of the family tree? It could not be the result of carelessness. It was a studied act. Taken in conjunction with the foregoing, the last act of Sir Nicholas is equally significant in witnessing the truth of the secret birth as his first act when he registered the baby "Mr. Francis". Despite repeated tokens of warm affection for Francis, Sir Nicholas made a detailed and elaborate Will, in which he provided freely and handsomely for all his dependants EXCEPT YOUNG FRANCIS. He is not left a single half-penny. " He left nothing to Francis," says P. Woodward, a solicitor. "I obtained a copy of the WILL from Somerset House." (The Early Life of F.B., p. 19)

Is not this act very direct proof that he did not regard the boy as his physical child? Why should Sir Nicholas have left his "SON" (?) penniless? There is no clear answer save one : Sir Nicholas believed that the young aristocrat would naturally succeed to riches from another source, and that hs expectations lay elsewhere.

Right throughout, the facts shape themselves exactly as we should expect them to do, if Francis Bacon were, in reality, a Tudor Prince placed with foster parents as a concealed love-child.

Two years after Francis was born, Sir Nicholas Bacon was commanded by the Queen to build a mansion in Gorhambury, St. Albans..........

******
See Francis, The Queen and Leicester

---

Childhood

Francis, The Queen and Leicester from The Marriage of Elizabeth Tudor by Alfred Dodd (p.45-53)

Poets Corner Westminster Abbey

On the removal of Sir Nicholas to Gorhambury, we find the Queen gravitating there year after year....from 1565 to 1578. Robert Dudley had been made the Earl of Leicester in 1564 and always accompanied her. She holds her Court only a short distance away, at the home of Lord Burleigh. These two places--fifteen miles apart--were amongst the Queen's summer residences. As she regularly visited the home of Sir Nicholas, it may be fairly be said, without any undue straining, that "she secretly watched, supervised and inspired his education," quite uncertain as to the best course to pursue regarding his future. He remained a concealed child by a morganatic marriage?

According to Dr. Rawley, he was introduced early to Court (Resuscitatio, p. 2) :

"His first and Childish years were not without some Mark of Eminency...Pregnant of Wit......Presages of that deep and universal apprehension which was manifest in him afterwards, and caused him to be taken notice of by several Persons of Worth and Place, and especially by the Queen, who, as I have been informed, delighted much to confer with him, and to prove him with questions.
"Her Majesty would often term him, 'The Young Lord Keeper.'
"Once being asked by the Queen how old he was, he answered with much discretion, being but a boy, That he was two years younger than Her Majesty's happy Reign : with which answer the Queen was much taken."
(Francis, it is said, would then be about five years of age.)
There is no room for doubt that as a growing boy, Francis was often with the Queen at Gorhambury, at York House, at York Place (the Queen's Palace) or at Lord Burleigh's Mansion, the Prime Minister and Secretary of State, was. through the Bacon's, nominal uncle to Francis. He had the most wonderful Palace and grounds in England. It was a stone's throw away from from "The Temple", Francis Bacon's home.

A contemporary writer, Nicholls, "betrays curious interest in the frequency of the Queen's visits" to Gorhambury. He traced many of them and left a record entitled, Progress of Queen Elizabeth.

A passage from the Duke of Norfolk's Confession incidentally tells of a CHILD in the Queen's Private Apartments:

"When the Court was at Guilford, I went unaware into the Queen's Privy Chamber, and found Her Majesty sitting on the threshold of the door listening with one ear to a little child who was singing and playing on the lute to her, and with the other to Leicester who was kneeling by her side. Leicester rose and the Queen continued listening to the child." (Strickland, p. 265)
Who was the CHILD? What was he or she doing in the Queen's Privy Apartments with Leicester? The historians do not know. They do not even hazard a guess respecting the child's identity : Or what the three were doing together on such terms of domestic intimacy?

Norfolk does not give the child's name. He was then fighting for his life on a charge of treason, and dared not be too specific respecting something which he knew must be regarded as a State Secret, if the child were verifiably the Queen's. The picture tells quite clearly the story of a father, mother and son, a happy family. Who else could the child be but Francis Bacon?--then about nine years of age. An echo of such happy rememberances is seen in Shake-speare's Sonnets 9-viiii):

"Mark how one string, sweet husband to another,
Strikes each in each by mutual ordering,
Resembling Sire, and Child, and Happy Mother,
Who all in one, one pleasing note do sing."
Three years later there is another little item of import. Parker Woodward says (Francis Bacon, p.9) that "at the age of twelve the Queen went specially to Gorhamabury, and a terra-cotta bust of the boy (which shows abnormal brain development) was made for the occasion." No bust was sculptured for the eldest son, Anthony Bacon. It is at least singular that the youngest son (presumably) of Sir Nicholas should be thus honoured and the elder one disregarded.

"At the age of thirteen, following a visit of the Queen to Gorhambury House, Francis was sent.... to Cambridge University. He did not go to St. Bennet's College, where Sir Nicholas had been educated, but to Trinity College, founded by Henry VIII, and visited by Leicester inn 1564.
"Here he was placed in charge of Whitgift, the Head of the College, who was made one of the Queen's private Chaplains." (Ibid., p. 9, Parker Woodward.)

The Queen Sends Francis to France

Francis returned from the University at the age of fifteen. He was entered at Gray's Inn. He probably attended Court. Whether he did or not, he must have been in contact with the Queen, for we next learn that he is suddenly torn from his legal studies by the Queen and sent to France. We know he was sent away personally and directly by Elizabeth because he writes :

"I went with Sir Amyas Paulet into France from her Majesty's Royal hand.... Since then I have made Her Majesty's service the scope of my life." Dr. Rawley, Resuscitatio, p. 73, 1671)
He again associates the Queen with his departure, so that there may be no mistake, in a letter to Cecil, 1594/5 :

".......These one and twenty years, for so long it is that I kissed Her Majesty's hands upon my journey into France."
What were the circumstances which gave rise to this sudden departure? Why did the Queen send him hurriedly away for three years? There may be no direct answer to these questions from open records of history, but we can surmise that something of fateful import must have occurred.

Young noblemen who were going abroad never went ordinarily to kiss the Queen's hand prior to departure. No other youth was sent to France directly "from Her Majesty's hand." No other youth was sent in the entourage of the Queen's amabassador and given the entre'e to the French Court. The phrase is used that the reader may understand that "the hand is indicative of power", and that he "went to France" as a consequence of "the Hand of Power." He uses it, as he uses the word later, in the Felicities of Elizabeth : and "those whom she raised to honour she carried such a discrete Hand over them ..... that she remained in all things an Absolute Princess." (Dr. Rawley, ibid, p.147)

"A Mr. Duncombe was sent with Francis as his tutor. Amyas Paulet was knighted and put in charge of Francis, and they crossed the Channel in Sept. In February of the following year, Sir Amyas Paulet succeeded Dr. Dale as Ambassador to France. They move along in attendance at the French Court, visiting Blois, Paris, Poictiers, and other places. " (P. Woodward, Sir Francis Bacon, p. 12)
In the foregoing historical facts it is self-evident that there was some subtle connection between Queen Elizabeth and Francis Bacon that has not, as yet, been generally understood or recognized. Not only was he sent direct from under her hand, but the Queen raises a gentleman to knighthood and places the youth in his charge. It requires little detective instinct to surmise that Francis had discovered the secret of his birth, and that the Queen, not knowing what to do for the best, had resolved to send him abroad for a long stay.

In any case, Francis must still have been in touch with the Queen and the Court, for he returned to England in 1578-- probably with despatches-- and while he was here "the Queen's private Court Limner, Hilyard, painted a miniature of him." One was also painted about the same time of the Queen, by the same artist.
The fact that Hilyard paints both persons in a very similar style at the same time is strikingly evidential of kinship. No other youth of eighteen was similarly honoured by Elizabeth save one who later was known as "Robert Earl of Essex."

Any impartial examination of the portraits of the Queen and Francis show similar characteristics of feature, which are exactly what we might expect from mother and son. It is unthinkable that the Queen would have allowed two such miniatures to have been painted had young Francis been a Bacon an not a Tudor. At that time, Elizabeth was undoubtedly proud of the youth's mental attainments as evidenced by Hilyard who wrote round the portrait in Latin, "Could I but paint his mind."

An examination of the portraits of the Earl of Leicester and the Earl of Essex show the same facial characteristics. They look like father and son, just as the Hilyard portraits-- posed from the same angle, once a follow-on of the other-- look like mother and son. There is not the slightest resemblance between Francis and his foster parents.

While Francis was in France, Sir Nicholas died. He returns to England to find that his reputed father has provided for everyone of his dependants except himself. There had been no personal quarrel. It could not have been for want of heart. Nothing had eventuated that would have provided any ordinary motive for such pointed neglect.

The singular thing is that this penniless young aristocrat makes no complaint at such apparently harsh treatment. It is not even considered strange by Lady Bacon or Anthony Bacon. There is no mention of the matter in their letters; nor does Francis, later, when pressed for monies, ever seem to remember the omission as a grievance, as would ordianrily be the case. It is taken by the entire family of the Bacons as a matter of course and the proper thing. The only common-sense interpretation of the no-bequest enigma is that the family understood that Francis's expectations lay elsewhere.

Penniless Francis As A "Queen's Pensioner"
The penniless youth resumes his studies at Gray's Inn. Who provided for him? Who kept him? Who clothed him? Did Lady Bacon or the Queen?

Lady Bacon's legacy could not have permitted her to do very much. Her letters show she provided him with certain foodstuffs of her own making and growing when he was in Chambers, but she does not appear to have provided him with an income. Yet an income he must have had from some source. From the age of twenty, Francis had nothing to live on, the Bacon family having no responsibility. How did he keep pace with the expenses of Gray's Inn? And hold his own with the students, many the sons of wealthy noblemen?

The truth is that Francis Bacon became one of Her Majesty's "Gentleman Pensioners", though "name did not appear on the official list any more than George Puttenham's." (W. Begley, M.A., Resuscitatio, Vol. I, p. 102) He became "entirely a Pensioner on the Queen's bounty" , says Parker Woodward. Putting it bluntly, he got an allowance from his mother the Queen.

This is proved clearly because of a letter he writes on the 15th October 1580 to the Secretary of State, his uncle, Lord Burleigh, to "present his more than humble thanks to the Queen for her princely liberality." He also asks for some other favours which he had in mind.

Why should the Queen concern herself with the son of the late Lord Keeper, and make him a monetary allowance, if there were no tie between them? There is no other young aristocrat that she takes under her wing in such a peculiar fashion.

There is no one else who asks the Queen for favours at this time. Judging from the letters and records, Parker Woodward says :

"He had evidently been promised that something satisfactory should occur in the future, and that in the meantime he was to be considered in the Queen's service and to have a satisfactory monetary allowance." ( Early Life of F.B. , p. 29)
From various little hints and asides, it is certain that Francis in his twentieth year knew the secret of his parentage : that he was a concealed Prince of the House of Tudor. He seems to have taken his allowance from the Queen without any shamefacedness, as his natural right. And she is sufficiently independent to jeopardize, later his allowance by thwarting the Government, when had got into Parliament, rather than compromise with his conscience. The Queen is vexed. He is forbidden Court. His allowance is apparently stopped, for he gets into financial difficulties.

When he returned from France, he had no desire to study Law. He was therefore much perturbed at an order through Lord Burleigh, from the Queen obviously, that he was to enter Gray's Inn. He even writes to Lord and Lady Burleigh pointing out how incongruos it is for a person in his position to be employed in studying the common law. He says :

"I do not understand how anyone well off or friended should be put to the study of the common law instead of studies of greater delight."
Had Francis been the real son of a lawyer, it would have been impossible for him to feel it infra dig to study common law. As a Prince, though concealed, hoping would be publicly called to the Succession of the English Throne, he would naturally feel such drudgery to be a little beneath him. To ease his discontent, Burleigh procures him a dispensation from his compulsory attendance of "keeping Commons." The entry, in Burleigh's handwriting, is still to be seen in the records of Gray's Inn. Is it not passing strange he should have declined to take his meals with the law students, barristers? Even six years later (1586), an order was again specially made, permitting him to take his meals at the Reader's or Master's table, although not entitled to by seniority. He passed over the heads of barristers and ancients, care having to be taken to reserve their rights to pension in view of his supercession.

When he attained twenty-one, it was decided to send him for a year's travel abroad, according to the practice of the period for Prince's and Noblemen's sons. There are records which show that Lord Burleigh was interested in the best routes he had to travel.

These odd glimpses show the inter-relation between Francis, the Queen, and Lord Burleigh, the Queen's private confidant and Secretary of State. There is a definite intertwining that would never have been possible or probable, had Francis Bacon been the son of Lady Bacon. Why should Lord Burleigh and the Queen have worried themselves about him at all unless there was a secret relationship between her and the youth?The fact that there was a secret bond is evidenced in numerous ways as the years pass, too numerous to deal with here.

When he was about twenty-four, he was elected Member of Parliament for Melcombe (1584). How did this young law student, without local influence, property or income, get into Parliament? He could only have been placed there, as Lord Burleigh's nominee, by the powerful influence of the Queen. The difficulty of a penniless man obtaining a seat in the House of Commons is slurred over by all his orthodox biographers, who take it as a matter of course that he simply walked into Parliament. It cannot be done today and it certaintly could not be done in Elizabethan times. Men could not obtain such a distinction in those days without very powerful State influence. It is a distinguishable honour, and it would be difficult to explain ordinarily how he came to obtain it. It again indicates a connection between Francis and the Ruler of England. Without some strong motive it is impossible to see why the Queen or Burleigh should have taken more notice of Francis than any other youth. His great ability would not be a sufficient reason. He was undoubtedly the Government's nominee. More likely than not, Burleigh, knowing that he was restless, got him into public life to keep him actively employed, to save him from nursing a grievance because he was not openly recognized as a Tudor.

Double-Meaning Phrases :
A "Natural And True-Bred Child"

Owing to plots having been discovered for the assassination of the Queen, the Parliament of 1585 took stern measures for her protection. "The Earl of Leicester formed an association of subjects of all degrees who bound themselves to defend the Queen from her enemies." Early in the year Francis wrote a long letter of caution to the Queen.

It begins on a curious note. It is an excellent specimen of the ART OF DOUBLE WRITING, i.e. writing with double meanings, an open meaning and a COVERT one.... an art which he practised all his life in order to convey interior meanings to careful readers. He begins his open letter with these words :

"Care, one of the Natural and True-Bred Children of Unfeigned Affection, awaked with these late wicked and barbarious attempts, would needs exercise my pen to your Sacred Majesty."
For a young man of twenty-five, newly elected to the House of Commons, an ordinary commoner unknown, an unfledged lawyer, to intrude a public letter of advice to the Queen over the heads of her responsible Ministers, would be classed today as a piece of impertinent presumption. It would have been equally so regarded three hundred years ago, and would have been publicly resented by his brother-members had there not been an uncertain feeling that this young man had; for some mysterious reason, the ear of Authority. It was felt that, in view of the strange circumstances of his election to Melcombe, he was in the nature of a "dark horse," no one knowing how far he would ride. He was an enigma whose secret no one had better probe in view of his highly placed friends in the Government. It was better to maintain silence. It is obvious that an ordinary commoner who would never have dreamed of writing such an epistle. Elizabeth had her own Officials who took proper precautions for her safety, and who certainly did not require their attention called to fears for her safety or the necessary steps that should have been taken. Yet the fact remains that Francis did write such a "Letter of Advice."

It is only understandable on the supposition that he felt he had a peculiar right to speak of the Queen's safety over and above anyone else, and also because he wanted to leave a subtle record that he writes not as a member of Parliament but as a Natural Son-- one of the Queen's Unacknowledged Sons. The unecessary sentence,which he slips in as an ellipsis, tells us the implied truth, that he, himself, is "ONE OF HER NATURAL AND TRUE-BLED CHILDREN."

The phrase slips by persons not aware of his Birth-Secret without arousing suspicion. It is said in such a way that the Queen and Lord Burleigh cannot cavil at it. The "wise" dare not say anything. The ignorant cannot. And to those who are now aware of Francis Bacon's literary style of the double entendre---so noticeable in Shakespeare--he seals the outstanding truth of the Era unequivocably in his first public utterance : He lets it be known that he knew who he really was, and that as a Tudor he had a special right to advise even the Queen's ministers, for he was legitimately the next of kin in the Succession and the Prince of Wales by virtue of his Tudor birth.

In view of this open yet covert declaration that he was a "Natural Child" of the Queen's , we can better understand the "SUIT", the Mysterious Suit, that crops up from time to time for some twelve years, from 1580 to 1592, when he abandons it with a gesture of despair.............

---

Bacon, Francis, 1561–1626, English philosopher, essayist, and statesman, b. London, educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and at Gray's Inn. He was the son of Sir Nicholas Bacon, lord keeper to Queen Elizabeth I. Francis Bacon was a member of Parliament in 1584 and his opposition to Elizabeth's tax program retarded his political advancement; only the efforts of the earl of Essex led Elizabeth to accept him as an unofficial member of her Learned Council. At Essex's trial in 1601, Bacon, putting duty to the state above friendship, assumed an active part in the prosecution—a course for which many have condemned him. With the succession of James I, Bacon's fortunes improved. He was knighted in 1603, became attorney general in 1613, lord keeper in 1617, and lord chancellor in 1618; he was created Baron Verulam in 1618 and Viscount St. Albans in 1621. In 1621, accused of accepting bribes as lord chancellor, he pleaded guilty and was fined £40,000, banished from the court, disqualified from holding office, and sentenced to the Tower of London. The banishment, fine, and imprisonment were remitted. Nevertheless, his career as a public servant was ended. He spent the rest of his life writing in retirement. Bacon belongs to both philosophy and literature. He projected a large philosophical work, the Instauratio Magna, but completed only two parts, The Advancement of Learning (1605), later expanded in Latin as De Augmentis Scientiarum (1623), and the Novum Organum (1620). Bacon's contribution to philosophy was his application of the inductive method of modern science. He urged full investigation in all cases, avoiding theories based on insufficient data. He has been widely censured for being too mechanical, failing to carry his investigations to their logical ends, and not staying abreast of the scientific knowledge of his own day. In the 19th cent., Macaulay initiated a movement to restore Bacon's prestige as a scientist. Today his contributions are regarded with considerable respect. In The New Atlantis (1627) he describes a scientific utopia that found partial realization with the organization of the Royal Society in 1660. His Essays (1597–1625), largely aphoristic, are his best-known writings. They are noted for their style and for their striking observations about life.

See his works (14 vol., 1857–74, repr. 1968); biography by L. Jardine and A. Stewart (1999); studies by J. Weinberger (1985) and P. Urbach (1987); D. W. Davies and E. S. Wrigley, ed., Concordance to the Essays of Francis Bacon (1973).

Infoplease.com