วีดีโอ

Don't you think all this is wearing a bit thin?

It seems like you’re putting up more videos lately, I’m glad.

What a stimulating and information packed presentation- thanks Cheryl and all researchers mentioned!

What color was Elizabeth Trentham's hair? Her father and successful brother? It is notable that the 18th Earl of Oxford's hair is apparently black.

Bonner's comment about Essex being the bastard son of Hen VIII (ie not a Devereux by blood) by Mary Boleyn is really important. First it explains why Essex (and Oxford) felt extremely concerned about Elizabeth's/Cecil's emergent scheme to bequeath the throne to James VI Stuart of Scotland. Because this means Essex was her very close relation-- on both sides. Assuming Henry VIII begat Essex's grandmother Catherine Carey (cuckolding his private esquire William Carey) via Henry's known mistress Mary Boleyn, this means on Elizabeth's paternal Tudor line, Essex is Henry VIII's great-grandson. Meaning Elizabeth's paternal grand-nephew, Elizabeth Carey being her paternal (half) sister and Lettice Knollys her paternal niece. Meanwhile on Elizabeth's maternal line, being the daughter of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Carey's mother Mary Boleyn is also Elizabeth's aunt. Making Catherine Carey also her maternal 1st cousin, so Lettice Knollys her maternal 1st cousin once removed, and Essex her maternal 1st cousin twice removed. I will also note without comment the direct relationship between the Careys and Oxford with regards to revels, play censoring, and indirectly John Florio and Amelia Bassano and the Laniers ie the Italian Jewish court musicians (and poets and translators) who perhaps feature as dramaturgs for the Italian plays.

Another foreigner poking his nose into the national poet of the English people from a viewpoint of jealosy of this most famous Englishman

Thanks to all concerned for rhe addition of Bryan Wildenthal to the Oxfordian cocktail mixology, at the Blue Boar.

"Spades" are SPEARS.

Why doesn't he tell us who he is quoting?

The tidbit that Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate stood out to me when we started Introduction to Shakespeare. Later, my course mate expressed curiosity that Shakespeare's background contained more information about grain business than literary preoccupation. Yet, his Writings did not explore grain business. At this time, we had no idea that there was authorship dispute. Our Professors did not mention it.

Smart and beautiful!

This is like a history channel sometimes. Full of fascinating information.

What a great application of a statistically valid methodology to the Authorship Question, unlike the Stratfordian convoluted hokum, also known as stylometrics, which has a base error rate of 20%. Not exactly statistically valid. Another commenter here has suggested to Mr. Chambers, if possible, for this same methodology to be applied in testing Robert Prechter’s research, which posits that Oxford published a great number of other works under various allonyms and pseudonyms. I agree that it would be extremely interesting to see the outcome of that analysis as compared to other presumed “authors”. Although there are some …. or one, Oxfordian who consistently comment here (see below) and everywhere elsewhere on the internet with the same stump speech contesting all things Robert Prechter, the research of “Oxford’s Voices” cannot be dismissed so flippantly. It’s as if some …. or one, Oxfordian is desperately seeking to reclaim and redirect our attention, while attempting to put this paradigm shift back in the proverbial tube of toothpaste.

The Oxfordians have a huge problem: Their candidate,Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, indisputably died in 1604, prior to the dates of either Macbeth or The Tempest.

Solid talk

Great information.

@SOF Denizens: Two and a half things: #1) Fulke GREVILLE is Oxford’s 1st cousin. When you look at their immediate family tree, they appear right next to each other in the same generation, along with GOLDING (i.e. Ovid), Peregrine BERTIE (i.e. Helsingør), and Edward Windsor (i.e. Venice); all indisputably Shake-speare canon. #2) Also regarding Fulke Greville, why does his moniment epitaph, which composed before he died, conclude with: Trophaeum Peccati- the Trophy/Monument of Sin? Greville was no “party boy” rather: Chancellor of the Exchequer, famously a serious person. The connection is via his father John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford’s first wife Dorothy NEVILLE. Her sister Anne (1533-1583) is the mother of Fulke Greville (who d. 30 Sep 1628), by her husband Fulke Greville the elder (d. 15 Nov 1606). This is… perhaps important… given Greville explicitly mentions being the “master” of Shake-Speare and of Johnson. Along with Oxford’s daughter Susan Herbert and her husband (FF dedicatee), Greville as Oxford’s surviving 1st cousin is well positioned to coordinate editing and publishing of FF with Johnson et al. Like Oxford, Greville was a fearsome tiltyard jouster whose military career was thwarted from on high. He had also already been literary executor (including reviser) of his Shrewsbury classmate Philip Sideny; so doing same for Oxford would have been within his grasp. I think it was Bonner (?) who mentioned Greville bought Oxford’s house so had access to his manuscripts.. that’s an intra-family real estate deal. And/or an intra-family joint custody of dozens of scripts. Both. (As I recall, Johnson later burned “seven” works in his accidental-on-purpose “desk fire” - - sigh.) Lastly, a little thing, regarding the Windsors in passing which connects again between Shakespeare canon and Oxford biography: Edward Windsor was a notorious and unapologetic Catholic- in Oxford’s immediate family. (He had been carpet knight to Queen Mary, Elizabeth’s horrible sister, before dying in in 1574 in Italy.) Windsor is buried at basilica dei Santi Giovanni e Paolo, i.e. in VENICE. Dorothea and others may be interested to visit. Before he went into exile during the counter-counter-Reformation, reigning Queen Elizabeth visited him in 1566 at Bradenham, Bucks. Chronologically, this is when Oxford was her ward and roughly the same time he received his (second) masters degree (from Oxford during Eliz’s royal progress). This is notable because his wife Katherine, Oxford’s sister, had created a huge scandal around the time the 16th Earl died. Quoting from Wikipedia: “In 1563, Oxford’s older half-sister, Katherine, then Lady Windsor, challenged the legitimacy of the marriage of de Vere’s parents in the Ecclesiastical court. His uncle Golding (OVID) argued that the Archbishop of Canterbury should halt the proceedings since a proceeding against a ward of the Queen could not be brought without prior licence from the Court of Wards and Liveries.“

its well known that angloamerican shakespear-scolars dont know much of foreign languages - so italian french and german authors dont exist-until translated ( for the british and american academe the times of a carlyle have long gone)

This is absolutely a wonderful panel discussion. Thank you to all , you are truly amazing

Stratfordian Academics - Shameful, Scandalous, Dishonest, Tribal, Intellectually Dishonest A lot to answer for, it would appear

These Lords who are designated as writing Shakespeare had too much to lose by the risk of writing; they were too busy living to have the eternal urge to make their mark in print, unless it accrued to property, title or status. Shakespeare's work often takes place in low taverns, with comic, bawdy gusto: surely beyond the reach of these aristocratic leisured men? A man who knew 'a little Latin and less Greek'( Johnson's words on Shakespeare), could, as the 'Swan of Avon', be the greatest writer who ever lived. Shakespeare's live was almost dull, invisible, hence his ability to turn out these works of art, not get thrown into jail like his friend Ben Jonson.

Genious. First princilples. Thanks for everything Robert.

Thank you for an interesting, clear-headed, and for me, an entirely convincing argument that de Vere wa not bisexual.

Elementary Watson, elementary. The person who had the words (vocabulary) wrote The First Folio. What is the date of the newest words to be coined into the English language and first used in the First Folio? The correct date is 1611 and the book is Queen Anne's New World of Words. More than 150 words in the First Folio were newly minted into the English language and cannot be shown to have been used previously by any of the preferred dandys including Stratford man. The man who coined several thousand new words into the English language with Queen Anne's New World of Words is the only person in England with a large enough vocabulary to have written the First Folio, John Florio. Unless you can explain how Oxford, who died in 1604, could have used words which did not exist in the English language until 1611. More better research, maybe?

It were She, E. Ver.

Strong stuff!

I'd say Argenis was a cover story for the actual project, which was the first folio. Reports about seeing the translation of Argenis are part of the cover story. King James was aware of and approved the Shakespeare folio project.

I’m seeing some of the comments here that are not directly addressing the subject matter of Prechter’s presentation. The whole point of the video is to dissect some Oxfordians’ long-held, factless opinions as untenable. There are some commenters who are instead fixated on a psychosocial element that is beyond the intended scope of this video, all speaking as if from a position of authority, based on either academic title or some anecdotal story of a “friend”, etc., even implying that Prechter has some sort of latent and unconscious homophobia and/or biphobia which is just sooo obscuring all of his objectivity and reasoning, while conveniently not asserting that directly of Prechter. Please do not attempt to speak for my demographic, and instead focus on the subject matter of this presentation. Prechter has deconstructed nine arguments utilized by some Oxfordians who claim proof of Oxford’s sexual orientation (you’ll have to ask them as to why they consider this topic pertinent. Hint: cuz it’s a linchpin of their version of the Sonnet Story rationale). I have yet to see a cogent rebuttal to any of those nine arguments. Is there an elusive tenth one of which I am unaware? So psychoanalyze that.

It's incredible, isn't it, that we have hundreds of Jonson's manuscripts but not a single one from Shakespeare? That fact alone defies explanation in terms of accidental fires. There should be some works by Shakespeare around considering his fame and output but there is not a single one. There should also be some works from the Stratford man if indeed he was said writer. That fantasy cruise, however, sailed long ago. Thank-you for this wonderful insight and presentation. I love Oxfordians and Authorship questioners for their investigative and historical curiosity.

🕌👏👏👏

Thanks for another insightful talk on what is perhaps the most complex of "Shakespeare's" comedies. Rima's scholarship covers a neglected facet of Elizabethan history as it relates to the play. This is more proof that doubters like Oxfordians are advancing Shakespearean research into the 21st century. Stratfordians have painted themselves into a corner from which they cannot escape because they have attributed the plays and poems to the wrong man. No commoner could have had the insider's information on the Russian envoys found in the play. It was not common knowledge and in a time when newspapers were usually single broadsheets there was no way someone like the Stratford businessman could have known it. Only someone who was among the highest strata of society would have had access to such knowledge.

Robert's knowledge of Elizabethan literature is without parallel. I will always preface my comments on his videos and interviews that at first I was skeptical about his book Oxford's Voices. Since I have watched many of his presentations I am now of the opinion that his research is honest and impeccable. He does not disappoint here. In fact, he excels. Robert lists 9 arguments to suggest de Vere was bisexual (5:18), I can provide more evidence which he does not cover. The reason why de Vere was estranged from his wife (point 2) was because he believed the lies spread about her that he was cuckolded by her and that their first daughter Elizabeth was not really theirs. This lasted for five years. I do not see any bisexual man being so incensed over his wife's infidelity as de Vere was. Indeed, the play Othello is part of his literary atonement for wrongfully accusing her of adultery while he was on the continent. Sonnets 116 and 117 address how he was attempting to redress the slanders he spread about her in court. As Robert hints in the video, Rowland York was the originator of those lies. I now refer to the rhetorical figure of illeism in which authors will write of themselves in the third person. Any reference to a "fair youth" in the sonnets could therefore be de Vere talking of himself in that manner. This addresses argument 4 about homoerotic poetry. Some researchers have alleged that several sonnets are directed towards a "fair youth" with whom de Vere had a sexual relationship. There is little evidence the poems are about that. Point 9 is what could be called a red herring: many heterosexual men are effeminate. Barnabe Rich's observation is therefore just an observation, not an inference about de Vere's sexuality. Unfortunately this is a common mistake which is made even today when slightly-built boys and men are called gay or queer as insults made by ignorant people based merely on their appearance. Furthermore, as Robert points out, he was describing someone other than de Vere. Prechter shows at 17:28 many reasons why bringing home a choir boy from Italy was not due to sexual attraction. But what he does not include is that de Vere patronized at least two composers - John Farmer and William Byrd - and one musical troupe, so hiring a talented choir boy would be something he would do to add to the popularity of his troupe. The choir boy was evidently someone who the Vatican took interest in so we can infer that there was something exceptional about him.

An excellent critique of Stratfordian ignorance of the French characters in Love's Labour's Lost and measure for Measure and the political intrigues which surround both plays. There is a deeper connection to de Vere and Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham that is not covered in this video. De Vere's uncle, by marriage to his father's sister Frances, was Henry Howard the Earl of Surrey (and originator of the "Shakespearean" sonnet form) who was a grandson of Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norffolk. Charles Howard was a first cousin of Henry and another grandson of the 2nd Duke of Norfolk. This family connection would explain how he knew of the rules for the Order of St. Clare (25:30). All he had to do was make a family visit to the Lord Admiral. Another way he could have known is through Howard's patronage of the Lord Admiral's Men acting company or through de Vere's service as captain of a small fleet of ships in 1588 when the Spanish Armada was defeated. Shakspere of Stratford could never have traveled in those high aristocratic circles in Elizabethan England, nor could he have entered the Bodleian Library at Oxford unless he was a student and there is no record he went to any university or law school. This is important, since for both Oxford and Cambridge Universities, there is an almost complete record of students from the founding of both universities. There goes the Folger's alleged scholarship on the politics behind Lover's Labour's Lost and Measure for Measure.

Another great presentation by Bob Prechter as he incisively dismantles the case put forward by some claiming to know Oxford’s sexual orientation. I look forward to his analysis of “Shakespeare’s” alleged sexual identify. But the elephant in the room, that Prechter didn’t directly address, is the necessity for having this whole discussion. Apparently, there are some Oxfordians, as well as Stratfordians, who desperately need Oxford (or “Shakespeare”, in the case of Stratfordians) to be bisexual as that is a linchpin in their attempt to explain their version of the “Shake-Speares Sonnets”. Despite the flimsiest of arguments, these Oxfordians cling to the same old talking points, reminiscent of Stratfordians. Hmm, that should probably tell you something, ya think?

What drew me to my 22 years of research on Oxford was reading in the NYT about Roger Stritmatter's smoking gun discovery of dozens of connections between marginalia in Oxford's Bible and biblical echoes in Shakespeare. As a psychoanalyst, I thought, "So Freud was correct after all" in his seemingly eccentric belief that Oxford was the real Shakespeare. So I was put off when I first heard Prechter speak, since he said biblical and psychological approaches to the authorship question do not interest him (if I heard him correctly). In 2010, I published an article in a peer-reviewed psychoanalytic journal about the bisexuality of Shakespeare's Sonnets, in connection with Oxford's authorship of them. A good friend from college, who was an usher in Elisabeth's and my wedding 40 years earlier, came out to me as bisexual for the first time after he read my article. He confided that bisexuals face bigotry from heterosexuals, but also from gays, who don't believe bisexuals really exist, assuming they are just trying to conceal the fact they're gay. With nearly 50 years experience as a clinical psychoanalyst, I am familiar with unconscious mechanisms of defense that can distort our objectivity. Homophobia--and biphobia--are serious problems. So, once again, I disagree with Prechter. But I do agree with Hank Whittemore, a leading Prince Tudor theorist, who has written that Oxford was probably bisexual. www.researchgate.net/publication/47498885_The_Bisexuality_of_Shakespeare's_Sonnets_and_Implications_for_De_Vere's_Authorship

stunning conclusion! great thanks for your investigation.

20:30 it's an ad hominem attack - they are arguing 'to the person'

I wonder if Robert is going to publish a condensed book of the most salient points in "Oxford's Voices"?

Astounding! One suggestion: The name 'DEE', when spelled with capital letters, has those two 'E' letters, and might it not be possible for Dee to have reckoned the number '3' to be a backwards 'E', and for the uppercase 'W' and 'M' to also represent the letter 'E' rotated 90 degrees either way? One might also see the Hebrew letter 'Shin' -- which looks somewhat like a 'W' -- as also being a possible alternate-'E' for use in encryptions. I only mention this because the use of the uppercase 'P' (from 'SHAKESPEARES') on the Sonnets title page is interpreted by Waugh (et al.) as representing the uppercase Rho in the Chi-Rho christogram, an example of cross-alphabet letter-swapping. Perhaps an enterprising Oxfordian obsessed with these cryptographic treasures might consider looking for such 'E'-alternates in these and perhaps other texts . . . ? The truth will out!

This is another example of superior Oxfordian scholarship.

"It is dangerous and immoral to question Sir Stanley" is the point Wells really made. This is one of the best summations of evidence against the Stratford man I have seen and for de Vere. I recommend it to anyone interested in the authorship of the best plays in western literature. It does not occur to Stratfordians that perhaps the name on the title pages of quartos and the First Folio (and octavos) was a pseudonym. Or perhaps there were two men with the same name living at the same time, and one of them - from Stratford - was not the real writer. Tom makes an interesting point about grain merchants fixing prices (4:47). In Edward VI's reign, Parliament issued an Act to make grain forestalling illegal. A forestaller hoarded grain until he could raise prices during a food shortage. This is exactly what Shakspere of Stratford did in 1598. So much for "the greatest writer in English". Note: Shakspere purchased New Place in 1597, before he was charged with grain hoarding. But it is quite possible he was forestalling grain before he was caught. To be fair, other citizens of the town were also charged with the offence and also ordered to relinquish their stores. What writer would not educate their children so that they could not read their own writing (7:03)? He would have ensured that his name live on in family history as the great playwright and poet, yet there he did nothing to educate his children and left nothing for the education of any grandchildren in his will. Tom makes a persuasive argument that the Stratfordian story is based on evidence that is not only scanty but irrelevant to the career of a writer. But proponents ignore any counterevidence out of hand without looking at it objectively. Any evidence that contradicts their myth is summarily dismissed. That is the problem orthodox/mainstream Shakespeareans scholars have given to academia: a completely closed mind to all pertinent historical facts, especially those which contradict their extremely weak authorship theory. I must disagree with Tom on one point (14:15) about the signatures. I believe that the scratchy signatures on the will and two indentures are likely that of the Stratford man who was copying from a model which is why they are so bad. The rest of them are most likely those of scribes who signed on his behalf. The one on the Delotte v Mountjoy deposition, for example, has two clerical abbreviations in the name which no self-respecting literate businessman would allow: it would be far too informal and suggest they were ashamed of their name. Only someone who was barely literate would have let this go since they would not know any better. And why would he preface "by me" in front of his name (15:23) when he was known to be the testator of his own will? The only reason I can suggest is that the clerk added this for some reason probably related to making the man look literate. I believe that the term "player" in the 16th century (16:40) meant anyone who was involved in the production of plays, from set decorators, prop men, costumers, and even paymasters. It did not necessarily mean an actor with a speaking part. You could add non-speaking extras into that mix as well. Yet, there was no way the herald who issued Shakspere's coat of arms could double-check whether what Shakspere said about himself was true in an era where such corroboration was hard to find. Nobody carried actor's equity union cards or other ID, so whatever the man told the herald might have been taken at face value and not checked.

Another excellent presentation on the authorship mystery. Could it be that the fire in Jonson's study was intended to destroy manuscripts used in the printing of the First Folio? I believe so. Could the fire be a hint that the people whom "Shakespeare" satirized were afraid there were more manuscripts left unpublished which could further expose their foibles and flaws? If these could be proven true, it would lend credence to the idea that the fire was deliberately set to prevent such plays and poems from being published. I do not believe that Jonson would have deliberately set fire to his own writing. It destroyed months, perhaps years, of his own work which I do not see an ageing playwright wanting to rewrite. In an era when plague, floods, and other natural and unnatural events could snuff out life in an instant, writers would not necessarily have wanted to see their work left unfinished or destroy work which was ready for publication. The question is: why would he have set fire to the manuscripts used in the First Folio? Perhaps he thought they were of no use since the project had been completed and there was no need for them. Yet, what if there were other plays and poems given to him by Susan Vere Herbert? Why destroy valuable previously unpublished work given the quality of it? It does not make sense from our perspective, but perhaps there were good reasons for Jonson to do so. George Steevens was the first Shakespearean scholar to attribute the letter To the Great Variety of Readers from the First Folio to Jonson due to paraphrasing and plagiarism of writing by him, some of which was not published until after Jonson's death in 1637 in the collection Timbers. Steevens' argument was persuasive enough to convince many 19th century scholars including the editors of the Cambridge edition of the complete works. On another note: I was under the impression the fire happened in December 1623, specifically December 23rd. Perhaps my source was wrong.

I only watched the first half of the critique. Lot of good points. But they unfortunately overlook some important facts. (1) First fact is the W. Shakespeare's mother was Mary Arden. The Ardens were a very strong family with strong females. They survived the Norman purges of Anglo Saxons to be one of the few families with roots going back before the Conquest. So, W. Shakespeare definitely had a strong mother and knew of strong female influences. (2) Second, the lecture presumes that the so-called author the Shakespeare works was a literary author... meaning that they had to write it all down somewhere. This is despite the fact that after centuries of searches, there is no trace of anything actually written down prior to the First Folio published well after W. Shakespeare's death. Not only is there nothing known to be written by W. Shakespeare, there is nothing written by ANYONE that shows a connection to the literature. The obvious conclusion for everyone except literary scholars is that the works were NOT WRITTEN as we think of this verb today. Instead, they were transmitted by rote memory, as would be common for actors in the time period, and only later, well after W. Shakespeare's death, did anyone decide to write them down. Searching for written sources in the hand of W. Shakespeare is likely to be fruitless. The use of rote memory avoids several problems in Elizabethan England: notably the secret police, censors, plagiarists, and the book burners that later showed up with the English Revolution. (3) Third, one very interesting connection of the Arden family in Stratford-on-Avon is their relationship to the migration to the New World, and particularly the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A significant migrant was Alexander Webb. If the family history of Alexander Webb is traced in relation to W. Shakespeare, it becomes apparent that their families were closely related. I think you could even justify calling Alexander Webb a 3/8 brother of W. Shakespeare. Alexander Webb is interesting in his own right, because he and his descendants played important roles in every War in America, starting with King Philip's War, and continuing through to the Korean and Vietnam Wars. One of his descendants was James Webb, a director of NASA, and the namesake for the James Webb Telescope now being used by astronomers.

I have read there were other older hamlet plays performed, and that Shakespeare’s version supplanted all of those previous playwrights. It was not a new subject on the London stage, but his version triumphed.

There is no evidence for this nonsense. Personally, I believe that the works, attributed to William Shakespeare, were written by (no, not John Lennon, though he never officially denied writing them) - William Shakespeare. I refer you to James Shapiro's excellent book 'Contested Will', which, I'm sure, will fit nicely into your conspiracy theories, down in your comfortable rabbit hole.

This is excellent. I'm currently preparing a podcast episode on the SAQ and you have been able to highlight what I think constitutes as a very levelled and careful perspective with a lot of very relevant material accessible for both newcomers to the subject and people who have already begun to ask their own questions about the solidity of the foundations of an impeachable Stratfordian narrative. I came to this discussion myself after reading the Sonnets and finding them completely opaque and meaningless when attributed to Stratford Shakespeare, and after learning that men of that age were not in the habit of constructing long narrative poems based in an alternate universe. I distrust my own liking of Edward de Vere as a bias, and I can admit that I would be much pleased to hear of irrefutable proof which could see the authorship rightfully restored to him, but regardless, it might not have been his work. That said, the notion that Stratford Shakespeare had anything significant to do with the writing of the Shakespeare works is a hopeless and desperate position, as far as my reading has shown me.

I vividly recall that A.L. Rowse, in THE SHAKESPEARE MYSTERY, accused Oxford of having been "a roaring homo" -- no doubt based on the scurrilous accusations of his enemies. Thanks, Mr. Prechter, for this more-than-adequate demolition of that notion.

According to Loomey, the 3rd Earl of Southampton paid Shaksper 1000 pound to be the front man and also Elizabeth Trenthen paid a dump man in her will. That's the reasons he could afford buying properties.

❤

"Incredible improbabilities" sums it up exactly. Any statistician would recognize the impossibility of Shaksper being the author when confronted with this evidence. And there's even more not mentioned here.