I.really have.so much respect. For Derek ...ive seen him.1000 times and never knew anything about him personally until u recently in my 80 plus years learned about this controversy.. SO I SAY TO.HIM WELL DONE YOUNG MAN WELL DONE...REGRET I. ALL THE PLAYS.I HAVE SEEN I HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM PERFORM SHAKESPEARE
Thank you Sislertx for your kind words. Yes Derek supports many Oxfordian Societies, as does Mark Rylance. The even have an online petition you can sign to show reasonable doubt about Will Shaksper writing Shakespeare. I think you can find it at: doubtaboutwill.com
Bravo & Brava!! How I wish I could have seen this in real time. Fascinating & entertaining. The two Much Ado thespians literally brought tears to my eyes--so well played. Yet every presenter was captivating in their own right. Many questions, but only one for now: How does (the brilliant) A. Waugh align his assertions re Oxford's 'piety' (hence banishing Marlowe from his company) with claims attributed to him by Arundel (or Howard?, w/o notes at the moment) about his own atheism & alleged statements such as Joseph being a wittol & basically faithful Xtians being fools? I'm aware Oxford was claimed to be pious by Markham et al., but the former allegations in the Howard/Arundel/Southwell 'libels'--deposed for those who would have known better--not only paint Oxford as an atheist, the comments attributed to him align, or overlap, uncannily with those made by Marlowe. No doubt Alexander has thoughts on the matter.
Thank you Short Cipher, The word 'atheist' had a rather different meaning then. To the Catholic Church and to certain elements within the Anglican Church Oxford would have been an 'atheist' because his views as a God fearing and pious man were unconventional. Likewise Oxford would have considered Marlowe an 'atheist' because Marlowe used the scriptures to pour cold water on belief of any sort. We know quite a bit about Oxford's religious views from denunciations of him in the so-called Arundel-Howard libels and we know quite a bit also about Marlowe's religious beliefs from the denunciation of him by Richard Baines. The difference between Oxford's and Marlowe's 'atheism' was substantial. Oxford saw Jesus as a magus, as the son of man - a divinely inspired prophet who came to preach the ancient wisdom of the divinity of man as a messenger of God and by symbolic example, while Marlowe, who was apparently working on an atheist tract in 1592, used his considerable knowledge of the scriptures to ridicule the Anglican faith , and the scriptures while leaning toward the Catholic religion. Both Marlowe and Oxford believed Joseph to be a wittol, taking their cue from Matt. 1. 17-18. Marlowe used it to highlight the folly of prescribed Christianity, Oxford to explain the the divinity of Christ as 'Son of Man' while rejecting the dogma of divine virgin impregnation. I think it highly likely that Oxford would have viewed Marlowe's 'atheism' as provocative and distasteful and his own 'atheism' as preserved and indicative of a sacred or higher understanding.
I W O W ! --Stunning turnaround of Oxfordian A:Waugh to a Marlowian Position?? I transcribed from min 01::55.42 ff Alexander Waugh: " I would just say: its a sidely (?), weird and phantastical theory, but I don‘t wonder, if Marlowe exists, as a separate entity, a separate name, from the great Shakespeare… school, and there are all these experts and are telling us that his [Marlowe] hand is all over of some of the Shakespeare plays ..Henry VI particularly …tells us that he exists , a separate entity , possibly because Edward de Vere could not stand the sight of him after he realized his atheism and that therefore his contribution to the Shakespeare Canon which may have included EDWARD II and things like that, they were sort of let loose and they got a life of their own and hence Marlowe has this great name for him self Just an Idea,…it’s a guess."" (end)
good spot you can see there is no rhyme or reason that they apply to their argument they just throw any old ideas around in the hope of hooking another convert
How convenient that after developing Shakespeare theatres in London and moving most of the productions down there that now Stratford upon Avon can be wiped from the map. Enabling more foreign visitors access to Shakespeare without having to make the trip north. Now the ground work can be laid for a completely Londoncentric Shakesperian tourist industry.
Ok so the one thing i never hear answered is why. Why was all this necessary? Whats the point? Why hide the author’s identity if they were all poets anyway ?
The point is Shakespeare did not go college, so there is absolutely no way he could be a prolific and celebrated author. All great men are born in the aristocracy and attend very expensive schools.
It's the 'stigma of print' Writing plays was seen as hugely unbecoming for a nobleman because there is prostitution and theft there, among other things. Putting your real name on literature is a modern phenomenon, roughly dating from the 20th century. Mark Twain is an example of this - it wasn't the author's real name.
@@chrisrichardson8988 Thank you for your comment. It is a common misunderstanding. There are many great playwrights from this time who are working class - Ben Jonson is one. The problems with the Stratford man is there is no paper trial proving he wrote anything. There were allusions to 'Shakespeare' being a pseudonym at the time.
Edward De Vere was a gay aristocrat yet is viewed by some have written such passionate man woman love plays as Anthony and Cleopatra also Shakespeare was known to include large parts of his plays in non rhyming English to appeal to the lower classes, stinkers in the pit, it is unlikely that a highborn individual at that time would neither know how to write or care to write to address the tastes of common citizens.
i do find you guys fascinating why not just provide one piece of solid evidence that points to edward de vere (or anyone indeed) that they wrote the plays and not william shakespeare from stratford please i do beseech you youve had plenty of time and still nothing
what qualifies as a "solid piece of evidence?" perhaps you could provide a "solid piece of evidence" for William of Stratford that can be used as a comparison...?
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/n.gif)
Fantastic, Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom is a phenomenal work, astounding really.
I.really have.so much respect. For Derek ...ive seen him.1000 times and never knew anything about him personally until u recently in my 80 plus years learned about this controversy.. SO I SAY TO.HIM WELL DONE YOUNG MAN WELL DONE...REGRET I. ALL THE PLAYS.I HAVE SEEN I HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM PERFORM SHAKESPEARE
Thank you Sislertx for your kind words. Yes Derek supports many Oxfordian Societies, as does Mark Rylance. The even have an online petition you can sign to show reasonable doubt about Will Shaksper writing Shakespeare. I think you can find it at: doubtaboutwill.com
A wonderfully inspiring event!
Really well presented! Brilliant information and research. 👑⚔️🛡
Wonderful stuff
And im surprises it hasnt been deleted by foogle.censorship
Bravo Derek - 1:58 🙇🏻🙇🏽♀️🙇🏽♂️
Truth....
Bravo & Brava!! How I wish I could have seen this in real time. Fascinating & entertaining. The two Much Ado thespians literally brought tears to my eyes--so well played. Yet every presenter was captivating in their own right. Many questions, but only one for now: How does (the brilliant) A. Waugh align his assertions re Oxford's 'piety' (hence banishing Marlowe from his company) with claims attributed to him by Arundel (or Howard?, w/o notes at the moment) about his own atheism & alleged statements such as Joseph being a wittol & basically faithful Xtians being fools? I'm aware Oxford was claimed to be pious by Markham et al., but the former allegations in the Howard/Arundel/Southwell 'libels'--deposed for those who would have known better--not only paint Oxford as an atheist, the comments attributed to him align, or overlap, uncannily with those made by Marlowe. No doubt Alexander has thoughts on the matter.
Thank you Short Cipher, The word 'atheist' had a rather different meaning then. To the Catholic Church and to certain elements within the Anglican Church Oxford would have been an 'atheist' because his views as a God fearing and pious man were unconventional. Likewise Oxford would have considered Marlowe an 'atheist' because Marlowe used the scriptures to pour cold water on belief of any sort. We know quite a bit about Oxford's religious views from denunciations of him in the so-called Arundel-Howard libels and we know quite a bit also about Marlowe's religious beliefs from the denunciation of him by Richard Baines. The difference between Oxford's and Marlowe's 'atheism' was substantial. Oxford saw Jesus as a magus, as the son of man - a divinely inspired prophet who came to preach the ancient wisdom of the divinity of man as a messenger of God and by symbolic example, while Marlowe, who was apparently working on an atheist tract in 1592, used his considerable knowledge of the scriptures to ridicule the Anglican faith , and the scriptures while leaning toward the Catholic religion. Both Marlowe and Oxford believed Joseph to be a wittol, taking their cue from Matt. 1. 17-18. Marlowe used it to highlight the folly of prescribed Christianity, Oxford to explain the the divinity of Christ as 'Son of Man' while rejecting the dogma of divine virgin impregnation. I think it highly likely that Oxford would have viewed Marlowe's 'atheism' as provocative and distasteful and his own 'atheism' as preserved and indicative of a sacred or higher understanding.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 thank u..well.said.
I W O W ! --Stunning turnaround of Oxfordian A:Waugh to a Marlowian Position??
I transcribed from min 01::55.42 ff
Alexander Waugh: " I would just say: its a sidely (?), weird and phantastical theory, but I don‘t wonder, if Marlowe exists, as a separate entity, a separate name, from the great Shakespeare… school, and there are all these experts and are telling us that his [Marlowe] hand is all over of some of the Shakespeare plays ..Henry VI particularly …tells us that he exists , a separate entity , possibly because Edward de Vere could not stand the sight of him after he realized his atheism and that therefore his contribution to the Shakespeare Canon which may have included EDWARD II and things like that, they were sort of let loose and they got a life of their own and hence Marlowe has this great name for him self
Just an Idea,…it’s a guess."" (end)
good spot you can see there is no rhyme or reason that they apply to their argument they just throw any old ideas around in the hope of hooking another convert
Here’s a theory: Shakespeare was inspired by the great writers of the previous generation and he SURPASSED them in his craft.
How convenient that after developing Shakespeare theatres in London and moving most of the productions down there that now Stratford upon Avon can be wiped from the map. Enabling more foreign visitors access to Shakespeare without having to make the trip north. Now the ground work can be laid for a completely Londoncentric Shakesperian tourist industry.
How badly have the Shakespeare-oriented Stratford businesses and organizations been affected by this Londoncentric initiative/agenda?
-Really Curious
Ok so the one thing i never hear answered is why. Why was all this necessary? Whats the point? Why hide the author’s identity if they were all poets anyway ?
The point is Shakespeare did not go college, so there is absolutely no way he could be a prolific and celebrated author. All great men are born in the aristocracy and attend very expensive schools.
It's the 'stigma of print' Writing plays was seen as hugely unbecoming for a nobleman because there is prostitution and theft there, among other things. Putting your real name on literature is a modern phenomenon, roughly dating from the 20th century. Mark Twain is an example of this - it wasn't the author's real name.
@@chrisrichardson8988 Thank you for your comment. It is a common misunderstanding. There are many great playwrights from this time who are working class - Ben Jonson is one. The problems with the Stratford man is there is no paper trial proving he wrote anything. There were allusions to 'Shakespeare' being a pseudonym at the time.
Edward De Vere was a gay aristocrat yet is viewed by some have written such passionate man woman love plays as Anthony and Cleopatra also Shakespeare was known to include large parts of his plays in non rhyming English to appeal to the lower classes, stinkers in the pit, it is unlikely that a highborn individual at that time would neither know how to write or care to write to address the tastes of common citizens.
i do find you guys fascinating why not just provide one piece of solid evidence that points to edward de vere (or anyone indeed) that they wrote the plays and not william shakespeare from stratford please i do beseech you youve had plenty of time and still nothing
what qualifies as a "solid piece of evidence?"
perhaps you could provide a "solid piece of evidence" for William of Stratford that can be used as a comparison...?