Phoebe, you are amongst the few TH-cam content creators that I genuinely esteem. Thank you for all of your noteworthy efforts in conveying the Shakespeare Authourship Question into 2025.
Brilliant. You are quite the researcher. Alexander, I am certain, is proud of you. He needs time to rest but prepare yourself. You just may one day channel his ideas. He never struck me as the kind of soul who would let anything-anything-stop him because Vero Nihil Verius. Nothing, not even death.
I'd add one more frame to your two frames of references for an underlying motivation to obscure Shakespeare as a penname for Oxford: the Prince Tudor theory. That is that Henry Wriothesley is the child of Elizabeth and Oxford. Certainly, they wanted to obscure portrayals of court personages and what that might reveal about Elizabeth's reign; however the motive was not revenge, but the identity of Wriothesley as the rightful heir to Elizabeth, not James. Those motivations are political and about retaining power court figures felt would be lost under Wriothesley.
What’s even more intriguing is the recent discovery of a new play - the plot centers around a group of sommeliers who spent a lot of time and energy arguing over the bottle a wine came in. The upshot? Most reasonable people agreed that they would rather just taste the wine.
interesting as always. No reference to the Oxford Link of 1740 though- was the date purely coincidental? No mention of the misquoted text or the other similar monument at Wilton House - is there a link? Alexander Waugh's video 'The Wilton House Shakespeare Monument - Its Mysteries Revealed!' is worth a look especially the DeVere familiar connection as well as that of First Folio patronage - is there a cross over here with 'the Wits'? I note too that the sarcophagus shape referred to on Burlington House also appears as nameplates in the Temple of British Worthies emphasising the Freemason connection and suggesting their involvement. Thanks for producing the video and your continued enthusiasm for the subject. Each time a little more is revealed.
Shakespeare was in a bit of an eclipse during the 18th century and that is probably why my favorite composer George Frederick Handel never wrote background music for any of Shakespeare's plays nor used any of Shakespeare's plots for his operas. Fast forward to the mid 19th century when we have Mendelsohn composing his glorious music for a German production of "A Mid summer night's Dream" which. of course, contains the most famous wedding march of all time -except for the Bridal march in Wagner's "Lohengrin" (Here comes the bride."
Thanks for another well-presented video. As usual, you are always informative and fun to watch. It would have to be Freemasons who would promote the myth knowing it was a myth and nothing more. I believe that de Vere was one of the founders of the English Rosicrucian movement, if not a leader. There are a lot of clues to that effect, including the odd fact that when Anthony Sayers, the first Grandmaster of the Premier Grand Lodge of England (founded in 1717... go figure), died in 1741, his funeral procession began at Shakespeare's Head Tavern. Masons don't do anything which isn't steeped in some symbolism, so it is safe to assume that the location for the beginning of the procession hints that de Vere (aka Shakespeare) was a Mason. It is known that William Herbert, the 3rd Earl of Pembroke was an early Grandmaster of the Freemasons, according to at least one Masonic history website.
This is wonderful, thank you! I think you make an excellent case here, and as you say, the extent to which Oxford would have become a 'mascot' for a future political cause is truly disappointing, particularly during a period when it might have been much more apropos to begin to celebrate his literary genius much more openly. Instead, we're currently still left with this most frustrating situation in which so many of us know full well the truth of the matter, yet the world at large continues to celebrate (and mis-educate) the most egregious of fictions. Perhaps it's most ironic in our age, with its pretence of cautions against 'fake news'. If fake news is bad, then what shall we make of fake history? In any case, this is a brilliant presentation, cheers!
While I think there are some sound observations here my own experience and research suggests that Alexander Waugh had the best handle on the code language then in use and still used to this day. But not wanting to deprive others of the joy of discovery, he did not share all he knew. That is not a criticism but a sincere compliment. The beauty and depth of the priest kings code language has, to be fully grasped, combined with profound experience. Until one has confronted death and returned, it is not possible to make the leap. The authentic initiations of the Rosicrucian order I have been through but sadly Masonry has debased and corrupted them. Much confusion has resulted. The breaking of the leg and suspension upside down by a rope is both metaphor and truth. The hanged man.
Shakespeare was educated to a very high level at the Stratford Grammar School, a 'classical education' in the Latin and Greek authors 'greats' in advanced maths and many other disciplines which today are only taught at university level. . He only needed to be in London for the theatrical season and so lived in various lodgings or short leasings until he settled with his brother Edmund in Southwark, where the Globe and other theatres were based. He wrote his works in Stratford and there is no basis for claiming he neglected his wife and children. Edmund had important status in the parish of St Saviour's (now the Cathedral) and was both a Trustee of the church corporation and the local Grammar School. Another local personage who actually endowed a set of Almshouses in the parish was Edward Alleyn, William's colleague at the Globe. The contemporary monument in the Stratford parish church is original- the sketch often reproduced to indicate differences or additions was simply inaccurate. Let us say that it was accurate and their were alterations. Why no mention or indication therefore of William being a 'player' on it? Because 'players' were regarded as not quite of the status of gentlemen or indeed burgess tradesmen. Another local worthy was one Robert Harvard, a meat dealer and haulier and also another Trustee and governor of the school. He married one Katherine Rogers who was from Stratford, her father was a fellow burgess of the town with, John, the father of the Shakespeares. They clearly made a match and among their children was the famous John Harvard who was the first benefactor of the Boston university named after him.
Do you mean Will Shakspere of Stratford? That Will Shakspere of Stratford was highly educated is wholly unevidenced so I take it you mean Shakespeare the writer. Traditional believers invent entire myths around such unevidenced claims that the Stratford man was a writer and it sells them lots of books. The fact is there is absolutely no evidence to support such a dubious claim that the man from Stratford ever wrote a single word. The Stratford man could not even spell his name the same way twice, not even on the same document yet many believe despite these scrawls and a total lack of any literary paper trail that he composed the greatest works in the English language. How does that work? Edward DeVere was, however, highly educated and clearly the primary author of the Shakespeare Canon. The traditional Stratford myth persists primarily because it is a feel-good miracle story. It's another creationist money-making truth-tale that is attractive and easy to swallow where no thought, no examination, no investigation and no evidence is required.
@@joekostka1298 UTTER DRIVEL - Shakespeare went to the Warwick Grammar School - his father was a Burgess of the town. You are ignorant of what that means in that period. There is only that one person - Shakespeare. He lived with his brother Edmund in Southwark. He was known and lauded by his contemporaroies in the theatre scene such as his colleague Edward Alleyne - do you know who he wae? Are you aware ben Johnson knew who Shakespeare was and that he was a fellow author - can you explain why Shakespeare shared authorship of some plays with other contemporaries? Are you aware that was a way to spread risk and investment? .There is no contrary evidence except by facile, ignorant contrarians who believe that some third rate aristocrat who was barely literate and would be so puffed up they would not hide their authorship - give a single example otherwise of such a pretence ? The silly books are those written by the 'Baconians', the DeVereists and the conspiracy theorists who can give no convincing explanation why Shakespeare of Stratford was so well off at his death despite owning no business interests in the town yet oddly was a major impressario in London - a place he need not live in except for the season. NOBODY spelled their name the same way at any time - or rather others would not do so if given it. There is no paper trail of MSs by anybody else either , especially from these aristocrats in their private libraries with not a single leaf of paper that connects them to authorship. - in fact find one for any contemporary. Your ignorance of the facts beggars belief - especially as you cannot shed a single fact to support your arguments, yet ALL contemporaries knew Shakespeare as author of the plays he produced and did not plagiarise or pirate them at all.
It refers to a time a century further past. The lodges were and are only people. Sigh. If Milton had written plays, or for for his life, he might have had some discrimination regarding his own genius. Perhaps by then we were already too mad, too suburban.
Not fully conviced by this one. It wasn't really explaiked how they didnt use De Vere as the face of their movement, but didn't know he was the actual author. I know there is a lot of debate about which face was used behind the mask, but it would be almighty coincidence wouldn't it?
Why don't we consider the fact that Shakespeare was also a dark dude with a lot of moral issues. Don't you think this may also be why they direct the attention to this nothing man of Avon?
Computer analysis states shakespear wrote the plays and definitely not the Earl of Oxford Marlow appears to co author of the Henry 4 plays. Also many of shakespears play were not original they were based on other plays and well know stories
I came upon your channel quite by chance and found this presentation most interesting. I cannot but admire the time and effort you put in to researching and presenting your video to augment the anti-Shakespeare conspiracy theory. I wholeheartedly agree that “promoting or suppressing the authorship question” was definitely not “high on the list of concerns” of the 18th century Wits. In fact, I am pretty sure it was on no one’s list since no one disputed Shakespeare’s authorship until 240 years after his death. It is only since the mid-19th century that obscure carvings on statuary, arcane codes and impenetrable anagrams have been deciphered that challenge Shakespeare’s authorship. They not only reveal that Edward De Vere is the true author but also Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, Aemelia Lanyer, Queen Elizabeth, and King James. Just about anybody in the Elizabethan/Jacobean era who could hold a quill pen must have written those plays, poems and sonnets. Anybody, of course except William Shakespeare. No evidence has ever been produced that seriously challenges Shakespeare's authorship; although tons of doubt has been manufactured. There are no documents that challenge Shakespeare’s authorship from his contemporaries. We do have Robert Greene’s (or somebody posing as him) bitter “Groats-worth of Wit,” attacking “Shake-scene” with his “Tiger's heart wrapped in a Players hide.” Also there is Ben Jonson who “did love the man and honour his memory this side of idolatry” but, nonetheless offered a left-handed compliment that Shakespeare “in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, 'Would he had blotted a thousand,’” because Shakespeare “had an excellent fantasy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometimes it was necessary he should be stopped.” Both the Lord Oxford and the author/poet Shakespeare had enough rivals and (in De Vere’s case) enemies to explode any imposture. De Vere had a knack for making enemies. When De Vere’s wife died, there were more than 40 memorial poems composed to her-but none by her husband. The seventeenth Earl of Oxford, evidently, could not even be bothered to attend her funeral in Westminster Abbey. One of the memorial poems referred to her as “another Grissel for her patience,” inferring that she suffered patiently the neglect and abuse of her husband. While on the subject of neglect, within two months of his wife’s death, De Vere abandoned his command at Harwich (remember the Spanish Armada?). His commander, the Earl of Leicester, wrote to Sir Francis Walsingham, principal secretary to Queen Elizabeth I (Secretary of State): “I am glad I am rid of my Lord Oxford, seeing he refuseth this & I pray you let me not be pressed any more for him what suit so ever he make.” (edited for clarity). I like the fact that you squeezed in Donald Trump into your presentation. In this age of conspiracy theories and distrust of scholarship and science, Trump is the perfect avatar for Edward De Vere and the Oxfordian obsession. What was once a harmless preoccupation of a few literary eccentrics has now become a source of legitimacy for willful ignorance, snobbery and classism, and social regression.
Phoebe, you are amongst the few TH-cam content creators that I genuinely esteem. Thank you for all of your noteworthy efforts in conveying the Shakespeare Authourship Question into 2025.
Thanks so much, that really means a lot! 🙏
Brilliant. You are quite the researcher. Alexander, I am certain, is proud of you. He needs time to rest but prepare yourself. You just may one day channel his ideas. He never struck me as the kind of soul who would let anything-anything-stop him because Vero Nihil Verius. Nothing, not even death.
❤️
Sweet! "The Stratfordian Authorship Myth." That's the first time I've heard that stated with such conviction. You rock, Phoebe!
🙏🏻
Thank you for matching Wits, Phoebe. Love your work....
Thank you! 😊
Nothing but respect and affection for such a well-ordered and beautiful mind. Well done.
🙏🏻😊❤️
I'd add one more frame to your two frames of references for an underlying motivation to obscure Shakespeare as a penname for Oxford: the Prince Tudor theory. That is that Henry Wriothesley is the child of Elizabeth and Oxford. Certainly, they wanted to obscure portrayals of court personages and what that might reveal about Elizabeth's reign; however the motive was not revenge, but the identity of Wriothesley as the rightful heir to Elizabeth, not James. Those motivations are political and about retaining power court figures felt would be lost under Wriothesley.
Thanks for your comment, I talk about the importance of PT in other videos
What’s even more intriguing is the recent discovery of a new play - the plot centers around a group of sommeliers who spent a lot of time and energy arguing over the bottle a wine came in. The upshot? Most reasonable people agreed that they would rather just taste the wine.
What play is this?
interesting as always.
No reference to the Oxford Link of 1740 though- was the date purely coincidental? No mention of the misquoted text or the other similar monument at Wilton House - is there a link? Alexander Waugh's video 'The Wilton House Shakespeare Monument - Its Mysteries Revealed!' is worth a look especially the DeVere familiar connection as well as that of First Folio patronage - is there a cross over here with 'the Wits'?
I note too that the sarcophagus shape referred to on Burlington House also appears as nameplates in the Temple of British Worthies emphasising the Freemason connection and suggesting their involvement.
Thanks for producing the video and your continued enthusiasm for the subject. Each time a little more is revealed.
Thanks! I talk about 1740 stuff more in my 3 burials video
Your argument and conclusion make more sense to me, Phoebe. Too easy to get lost down the rabbit hole and forget practical, common sense. Good work.
Thanks :)
Phoebe … Looking forward to your presentation 🎉🎉🎉
:)🙏🏻
What a Delight to Savour … A single listen is simply not enough … I return anon 😄
Shakespeare was in a bit of an eclipse during the 18th century and that is probably why my favorite composer George Frederick Handel never wrote background music for any of Shakespeare's plays nor used any of Shakespeare's plots for his operas. Fast forward to the mid 19th century when we have Mendelsohn composing his glorious music for a German production of "A Mid summer night's Dream" which. of course, contains the most famous wedding march of all time -except for the Bridal march in Wagner's "Lohengrin" (Here comes the bride."
Thanks for another well-presented video. As usual, you are always informative and fun to watch. It would have to be Freemasons who would promote the myth knowing it was a myth and nothing more. I believe that de Vere was one of the founders of the English Rosicrucian movement, if not a leader.
There are a lot of clues to that effect, including the odd fact that when Anthony Sayers, the first Grandmaster of the Premier Grand Lodge of England (founded in 1717... go figure), died in 1741, his funeral procession began at Shakespeare's Head Tavern. Masons don't do anything which isn't steeped in some symbolism, so it is safe to assume that the location for the beginning of the procession hints that de Vere (aka Shakespeare) was a Mason. It is known that William Herbert, the 3rd Earl of Pembroke was an early Grandmaster of the Freemasons, according to at least one Masonic history website.
Thanks for watching Ron!
This is wonderful, thank you! I think you make an excellent case here, and as you say, the extent to which Oxford would have become a 'mascot' for a future political cause is truly disappointing, particularly during a period when it might have been much more apropos to begin to celebrate his literary genius much more openly. Instead, we're currently still left with this most frustrating situation in which so many of us know full well the truth of the matter, yet the world at large continues to celebrate (and mis-educate) the most egregious of fictions. Perhaps it's most ironic in our age, with its pretence of cautions against 'fake news'. If fake news is bad, then what shall we make of fake history? In any case, this is a brilliant presentation, cheers!
Thank you for your kind words! 🙏
While I think there are some sound observations here my own experience and research suggests that Alexander Waugh had the best handle on the code language then in use and still used to this day. But not wanting to deprive others of the joy of discovery, he did not share all he knew. That is not a criticism but a sincere compliment. The beauty and depth of the priest kings code language has, to be fully grasped, combined with profound experience.
Until one has confronted death and returned, it is not possible to make the leap.
The authentic initiations of the Rosicrucian order I have been through but sadly Masonry has debased and corrupted them. Much confusion has resulted. The breaking of the leg and suspension upside down by a rope is both metaphor and truth. The hanged man.
Shakespeare was educated to a very high level at the Stratford Grammar School, a 'classical education' in the Latin and Greek authors 'greats' in advanced maths and many other disciplines which today are only taught at university level. . He only needed to be in London for the theatrical season and so lived in various lodgings or short leasings until he settled with his brother Edmund in Southwark, where the Globe and other theatres were based. He wrote his works in Stratford and there is no basis for claiming he neglected his wife and children. Edmund had important status in the parish of St Saviour's (now the Cathedral) and was both a Trustee of the church corporation and the local Grammar School. Another local personage who actually endowed a set of Almshouses in the parish was Edward Alleyn, William's colleague at the Globe.
The contemporary monument in the Stratford parish church is original- the sketch often reproduced to indicate differences or additions was simply inaccurate. Let us say that it was accurate and their were alterations. Why no mention or indication therefore of William being a 'player' on it? Because 'players' were regarded as not quite of the status of gentlemen or indeed burgess tradesmen.
Another local worthy was one Robert Harvard, a meat dealer and haulier and also another Trustee and governor of the school. He married one Katherine Rogers who was from Stratford, her father was a fellow burgess of the town with, John, the father of the Shakespeares. They clearly made a match and among their children was the famous John Harvard who was the first benefactor of the Boston university named after him.
Do you mean Will Shakspere of Stratford? That Will Shakspere of Stratford was highly educated is wholly unevidenced so I take it you mean Shakespeare the writer. Traditional believers invent entire myths around such unevidenced claims that the Stratford man was a writer and it sells them lots of books. The fact is there is absolutely no evidence to support such a dubious claim that the man from Stratford ever wrote a single word. The Stratford man could not even spell his name the same way twice, not even on the same document yet many believe despite these scrawls and a total lack of any literary paper trail that he composed the greatest works in the English language. How does that work?
Edward DeVere was, however, highly educated and clearly the primary author of the Shakespeare Canon. The traditional Stratford myth persists primarily because it is a feel-good miracle story. It's another creationist money-making truth-tale that is attractive and easy to swallow where no thought, no examination, no investigation and no evidence is required.
@@joekostka1298 UTTER DRIVEL - Shakespeare went to the Warwick Grammar School - his father was a Burgess of the town. You are ignorant of what that means in that period. There is only that one person - Shakespeare. He lived with his brother Edmund in Southwark. He was known and lauded by his contemporaroies in the theatre scene such as his colleague Edward Alleyne - do you know who he wae? Are you aware ben Johnson knew who Shakespeare was and that he was a fellow author - can you explain why Shakespeare shared authorship of some plays with other contemporaries? Are you aware that was a way to spread risk and investment? .There is no contrary evidence except by facile, ignorant contrarians who believe that some third rate aristocrat who was barely literate and would be so puffed up they would not hide their authorship - give a single example otherwise of such a pretence ? The silly books are those written by the 'Baconians', the DeVereists and the conspiracy theorists who can give no convincing explanation why Shakespeare of Stratford was so well off at his death despite owning no business interests in the town yet oddly was a major impressario in London - a place he need not live in except for the season.
NOBODY spelled their name the same way at any time - or rather others would not do so if given it. There is no paper trail of MSs by anybody else either , especially from these aristocrats in their private libraries with not a single leaf of paper that connects them to authorship. - in fact find one for any contemporary.
Your ignorance of the facts beggars belief - especially as you cannot shed a single fact to support your arguments, yet ALL contemporaries knew Shakespeare as author of the plays he produced and did not plagiarise or pirate them at all.
Alexander Waugh's argument is much better.
It refers to a time a century further past. The lodges were and are only people. Sigh. If Milton had written plays, or for for his life, he might have had some discrimination regarding his own genius. Perhaps by then we were already too mad, too suburban.
❤She posted...I'm there!! ❤
We’re There 😉
Not fully conviced by this one. It wasn't really explaiked how they didnt use De Vere as the face of their movement, but didn't know he was the actual author.
I know there is a lot of debate about which face was used behind the mask, but it would be almighty coincidence wouldn't it?
Why don't we consider the fact that Shakespeare was also a dark dude with a lot of moral issues. Don't you think this may also be why they direct the attention to this nothing man of Avon?
I think Shaksper was a freemason too
Computer analysis states shakespear wrote the plays and definitely not the Earl of Oxford Marlow appears to co author of the Henry 4 plays. Also many of shakespears play were not original they were based on other plays and well know stories
I came upon your channel quite by chance and found this presentation most interesting.
I cannot but admire the time and effort you put in to researching and presenting your video to augment the anti-Shakespeare conspiracy theory. I wholeheartedly agree that “promoting or suppressing the authorship question” was definitely not “high on the list of concerns” of the 18th century Wits. In fact, I am pretty sure it was on no one’s list since no one disputed Shakespeare’s authorship until 240 years after his death.
It is only since the mid-19th century that obscure carvings on statuary, arcane codes and impenetrable anagrams have been deciphered that challenge Shakespeare’s authorship. They not only reveal that Edward De Vere is the true author but also Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, Aemelia Lanyer, Queen Elizabeth, and King James. Just about anybody in the Elizabethan/Jacobean era who could hold a quill pen must have written those plays, poems and sonnets. Anybody, of course except William Shakespeare.
No evidence has ever been produced that seriously challenges Shakespeare's authorship; although tons of doubt has been manufactured. There are no documents that challenge Shakespeare’s authorship from his contemporaries. We do have Robert Greene’s (or somebody posing as him) bitter “Groats-worth of Wit,” attacking “Shake-scene” with his “Tiger's heart wrapped in a Players hide.” Also there is Ben Jonson who “did love the man and honour his memory this side of idolatry” but, nonetheless offered a left-handed compliment that Shakespeare “in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, 'Would he had blotted a thousand,’” because Shakespeare “had an excellent fantasy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometimes it was necessary he should be stopped.”
Both the Lord Oxford and the author/poet Shakespeare had enough rivals and (in De Vere’s case) enemies to explode any imposture. De Vere had a knack for making enemies. When De Vere’s wife died, there were more than 40 memorial poems composed to her-but none by her husband. The seventeenth Earl of Oxford, evidently, could not even be bothered to attend her funeral in Westminster Abbey. One of the memorial poems referred to her as “another Grissel for her patience,” inferring that she suffered patiently the neglect and abuse of her husband.
While on the subject of neglect, within two months of his wife’s death, De Vere abandoned his command at Harwich (remember the Spanish Armada?). His commander, the Earl of Leicester, wrote to Sir Francis Walsingham, principal secretary to Queen Elizabeth I (Secretary of State): “I am glad I am rid of my Lord Oxford, seeing he refuseth this & I pray you let me not be pressed any more for him what suit so ever he make.” (edited for clarity).
I like the fact that you squeezed in Donald Trump into your presentation. In this age of conspiracy theories and distrust of scholarship and science, Trump is the perfect avatar for Edward De Vere and the Oxfordian obsession. What was once a harmless preoccupation of a few literary eccentrics has now become a source of legitimacy for willful ignorance, snobbery and classism, and social regression.