Certainly? Where do you see it? I for my part don't see it. And people can look similar even without being each other's relatives.

@ Indigo His face

Indigo the face shape, lips and nose and even eyebrows and eyes

@ Anne Brewer Thank you!

@@annebrewer7882 Eyebrows, really? I guess you see what you want to see.Those features in different portraits can look differently. And even if there were some similarity in appearance so what? As I noted above even people who are not each other's relatives can look remarkably similar. Let's ascribe now every nobleman or every noblewoman whose portraits to us seem similar in that or other way to Elizabeth's to her children? Absurd. One must be deluded to the point of insanity to use such perceived similarity as an argument proving that he was Elizabeth's son.

she lied alot in her letter and was crafty and a master politician, she maybe had just given birth or whatever and wanted to prove her innocence. Based on history and her track record of lies in poltiical games I wouldn't trust anythign she says.

@@leslieangela9114I bet you have never read that letter in the first place. Start to think with your head and think about the implications of these words. If Elizabeth had given birth (and when would that be then? Where is the evidence that she was pregnant in the first place?) she wouldn't have raised this matter and asked to prove it when she easily could be examined by midwives. You can't dismiss her words as lies without proving that she was lying. Also, Elizabeth was only 15 years old year here and under severe stress.

Indigo wow you seem cool

@@ericloscheider7433 I simply study Elizabethan history which you obviously don't.

Indigo I wasn’t arguing with your ability to quote the historical record. I was responding to your obnoxious, condescending response to @Leslie Angela. And I wish I could study Elizabethan History, but obviously you are the only one who holds all that knowledge, so...

“Francis bacon “ also rewrote the kjb you read today

Of course there’s also the story that Henry Wriothesley, the third earl of Southampton, is QE’s son by de Vere.... But it *is* a fact that Henry was briefly engaged to Oxford’s daughter, arranged, of course, by William Cecil, who arranged many people’s lives, whether they liked it or not.

@@sarosch Wriothsely ,earl of Southampton is also supposed to have been William Shakespeare's gay lover -the youth described in the sonnets and he is depicted as such in the movie "All is true' and played by Ian McKellen.

@@kaloarepo288 I honestly can't say that I read anything homoerotic in Shakespeare's sonnets, that would imply that Shakespeare himself had a male lover. If you're a writer and someone is paying you, you'll write anything. It's like saying that Agatha Christie fancied short, autistic Belgian men because she wrote Hercules Poirot even though it's known that she didn't like the character and only kept writing him to get paid. People need to separate the art from the artist. Art isn't about an artist expressing their own feelings, it's about a person using their skills to produce a luxury piece for someone who is paying them. WTF would anyone buy a piece because some random nobody expressed their feelings in it? Don't you ever go to art galleries and wonder WTF you're looking at shit or rubbish all over the place? I do. No-one that produces actual "art" to get paid, and isn't an independently wealthy poser, luxuriously producing art whilst poor people do the hard work for them, can be true to their own feelings. That's why we have to put up with literal shit nowadays, because people refuse to comprehend that art is about execution of skill not expression of some twits edgy thoughts and feelings. If you think that some dirty b!tch splashing her menstrual blood around (as if there haven't been a million years of menstruating females before her) is art, then literally every shit flinging monkey is an artist. Like all aspects of culture art originates from religion. Learn an unbiased history and stop spreading misinformation.

Putz. 😂 That’s a word I wish got used more! Also, I totally agree.

He had money so it was a 'good' marriage for her.

@@ingerabrams4569 Oxford almost completely dissipated his fortune with high living and chronic incompetence in running his own financial affairs. He was a broke Earl long before he died.

Maria Hunter Money and position !

I’ve read so many works about the Tudors I forget where I read it but it was thought that Elizabeth I had several secret children who were placed by Cecil in noble households to be fostered. Knowing de Vere was the eldest of the queen’s bastard children he took charge of him specifically with the goal being to have his daughter marry him, reveal him as Elizabeth’s son and heir and have his bloodline eventually sit on the throne of England. He was also young and still considerably well of when they married.

Not true. Like so many things you believe, that's a folk tale Oxfordians have been telling each other for so long that the origins of the myth are lost.

There are no documents that conclusively prove that Shaksper of Stratford was the poet, in actuality. He worked in one of the theatre companies owned by Lord Oxford, who, it is conjectured, hired him as a beard. The best reading about all this is “‘Shakespeare’ by Another Name,” by Mark Anderson.

@@sarosch He never worked in a theater owned by Oxford, who never owned a theater. He held a brief lease on a theater in Blackfriars, run by Lyly, but lost it in a court squabble. The Blackfriars theater later opened by The King's Men was in a different location, and years later.

@@Jeffhowardmeade I will not take the bait, tho I dearly would love to. ;}

@@sarosch That is wise of you, not only because one easily gets lost when one goes down rabbit holes, but also because what I just said is very well documented. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Theatre?wprov=sfla1 The lease of the former theater was actually held by Henry Evans, with John Lyly running the boy actors. De Vere was Lyly's patron. The lease was ceded back to the owner, Sir William More, after less than a year.

@@sarosch there is, indeed, conclusive evidence Shakespeare was Shakespeare. He wrote his parts with specific actors in mind with a deep knowledge of their talents and what roles suited them best, and he’s referenced by other contemporary playwrights in their plays.

Thank you so much!

It was not uncommon for noble children to lodge at Oxbridge. What WAS uncommon was for them to stay such a short time and be sent home for repeatedly breaking windows. Please document your claim that Smith was one of the "most erudite scholars in England". When De Vere was 12, Smith said there was nothing more he could do for De Vere. Arthur Golding was never his tutor. He received two honorary M.A.s which were given to everyone in the Queen's entourage, but never the B.A. you had to actually earn. Far from being a prodigy, he was clearly a bit dim, as his poetry and his letters demonstrate. Gloves were worn by everyone long before De Vere made Italian gloves fashionable. And Shakespeare made so many boners about Italy (and other places De Vere had been) that it's pretty clear he'd never been there. And Elizabeth heard the rumors of her pregnancy and wrote to Edward Seymour, inviting him to find out for himself by meeting with her.

​@@Jeffhowardmeade Claire Ridgway brings Tudor culture to life. The lodging of the children of nobility is a goodly topic, and I hope it comes around. Sir Thomas Smith's life is not a difficult biography to uncover. He left an indelible record which inspires our respect for British intellectual accomplishment coming out of Feudalism. That he housed the child Oxford for eight years is not disputed. What de Vere got out of the lodging is open to interpretation. We see a letter written from the child to William Cecil in perfect court French which reflects Smith's own command of the language as Ambassador to France from England. One could hear Smith's evaluation of that surviving example of de Vere's command of language as "I have nothing more to give him." During this period, while Smith was abroad, de Vere was lodged in college and not his ancestral home. The choice points to the child's preferences. It seems he liked school from an early age. Smith's home, while Smith was in England, provided a rich intellectual environment, including a large library and Smith's own pursuits in the classics. Yes, gloves were popular. Having a better glove gained attention. The Italians took this to new heights with embroidery and perfume. De Vere spent liberally to purchase quantities which he distributed in Court. Elizabeth R spoke highly of the gift. De Vere spent a year in Italy, visiting the locations that show up in the Shakespeare canon in startling faithful levels of detail. Italy, the birthplace of the Renaissance, was a touchstone for the Tudor period. The influence of Golding on de Vere is a topic that merits scholarly study. This much we know. When Golding and de Vere were both lodged at Cecil House, Golding produced a translation from Latin to English of Ovid's Metamorphosis. It is indisputable that this poem is a bedrock of the Shakespearean Canon. Golding was de Vere's uncle. To say that they were living in the same house for two years while de Vere was a student of Latin and that they did not see each other, with an emphasis on Roman literature, defies logic. What students of literature can also tease out from this episode is that for some reason William Golding veered from his normal pursuits, the study of the writings of Calvin and other strict proto-Puritans, to delve into the raunchy world of one of Rome's most debauched poets. From Golding's pen then came lines of poetry that have stood for centuries as the most telling translation of Ovid. The meter and rhyme of this translation appear in poems published under de Vere's name as well as Shakespeare's. The tales told by Ovid appear in Shakespeare. Among the raciest and most sexually explicit were Venus and Adonis followed immediately by Lucrece, poems that launched the name Shakespeare in 1593 and 1594 with cannon shots that awakened the Tudor world to the name "Shakespeare." Pardon the pun. If moral bearing was a criterion used to identify a poet/playwright, Edward de Vere could be discounted, but of course, the personality of a poet/playwright is more likely socially offensive than not. For no less of a reason, gentlemen of the Tudor period did not make known their indulgences in these arts nor live out their lives in Bohemian style as de Vere was known to have done. The life of an artist is quite at odds with Court behaviors, and de Vere found himself in hot water again and again. Yet to discount that he was known as a poet and playwright from contemporary records is blinkered to the point of blindness. While not publishing poetry under his own name after reaching majority, it is indisputable that he kept producing. What is known of his life has a direct bearing on the Shakespearean canon. Hamlet is a play that draws directly from what we know of de Vere's life including references to unique events ascribable to no other person of record. The play is a tragedy which concludes with Hamlet begging to be remembered. It is a tragedy still to witness the derogatory invective being ladled out by an institutionalized campaign to discredit him.

@@tomditto3972 De Vere lived in the same house with his uncle while he was translating Ovid. He had a tutor for eight years who dropped him at age 12. He was fluent in French. A couple of plot points in a couple of plays resemble events in the life of De Vere, though none of them either closely or exclusively. Everything else you wrote you have imagined.

​@@Jeffhowardmeade Thank you for granting that de Vere was fluent in French when he arrived from Smith's care to Cecil's. If you wind back to our debate four years ago, you argued that a letter in high Court French that he sent to William Cecil might have been prepared by a subordinate. The 13 year old Earl was in a position to make demands like that,. Being spoiled by birthright to such power he behaved like a privileged brat. At 18 he murdered a servant and got away with it when Cecil managed to represent the death as the victim's suicide. The legal inquiry recorded that the sous cook threw himself upon de Vere's sword. The plot point shows up in Hamlet. Yet deep personality flaws aside, it is clear that de Vere reveled in the magic of language, going so far as to write a preface in Latin to a translation he commissioned from Italian to English for what scholars have since identified as "Hamlet's book," a tome on chivalry from which was borrowed the thematic core of the famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy. I am not making that up. Being polylingual in these languages no doubt endeared him to Elizabeth R, because she too had mastered Latin and Italian at an early age. I cannot resist imagining the banter at Court as these two parlayed above the heads of their inferiors in both rank and intellect, but admittedly, I am making that banter up. What is known by written record is that de Vere spent time away from his wife and with Elizabeth in the years 1572-73 while the Queen was in retreat at Nonsuch Palace, a relatively small and intimate setting constructed of wood and no longer standing, alas. Imagine what Claire Ridgway could do with such a locale if it was intact.

@@tomditto3972 If it were true that said plot point showed up in Hamlet, then Polonius would have been one of the lowest servants in the castle, not the highest, actually not a servant at all. Nobody represented the death of Polonius as a suicide. The only thing the two incidents have in common is death by steel. And De Vere COULD have had the letter written by a clerk, for all you know. You claim that he wrote V & A completely without evidence. Anything can happen in your world. De Vere probably wrote the letter, though. We have someone later praising his ability with Italian, so why not French? Unlike today, where speaking two languages is a rarity (among Americans, at least), it was common then. Shakespeare knew Latin (but less Greek). Richard Field left the Stratford grammar school ready for an apprenticeship with a polyglot printer in London. Riddle me this: if twelve year-old De Vere had nothing left to learn from one of the greatest scholars in history (or whatever you dubbed him), why did Beaumont say Shakespeare's works were "without scholarship"? Why did Ben Jonson say he "wanted art"? Why did John Ward say Shakespeare was a "natural wit, without any art at all?" Why do the works lack the high scholarship of Jonson or Drayton. If it was De Vere, his education was wasted.

In those times kings and queens didn't have much of a privacy. So if Elizabeth would have been pregnant, it would have been nearly impossible to hide.

@@helene4397 You would be surprised what Kings and Queens can hide. Elizabeth would 100% punish anything she regarded disobedience. Dresses were designed to hide pregnancy. It was expected of pregnant women to cover up. She was also accused of birthing illegitimate children by castle staff. Though that doesn't mean it is the truth, anything is possible. Do people really know what the current royals get up to? Not really, and there is much scandal in the royal family that has not been leaked to this day.

If she is virgin how he has kids. Virjin is a lady who did not do any sex

I saw a movie about Shakespeare had a ghost writer and at the end of this movie it revealed Queen Elizabeth had many lovers and children. Earl of Essex was one of them.

I fully believe she was indeed celibate. The risk to her status as Queen would be to great to gamble on a night of fun

Gary Allen mystery solved!

Read Shakespeare identified...youll become a believer .

Marion Arnott she WAS Henry's daughter. Sometimes the 🍎 doesn't fall far from the 🌳.

@@miriamhavard7621 Elizabeth was different from her father. Not has Sociopathic for one thing. Secondly we know in detail about Henry's affairs and his various illegitimate children. All we have about Elizabeth is gossip at second and third hand. During the reign of Henry VIII we have detailed stories in their reports about Henry's sexual escapades about Elizabeth we have from the diplomats no details only gossip to the effect and frequent denials that such affairs were happening at all. Further the Queen's health was a topic of great interest to the court and diplomats in London. And with the fact that Elizabeth's ladies in waiting etc., were often paid to provide information to the foreign diplomats it is of interest that no such details were relayed to them. Finally just how was Elizabeth going to be able to conceal a pregnancy? A Mistress can be sent from Court. Elizabeth would not have dared to send herself away. I doubt Elizabeth had any love children or that she ever got pregnant.

@@miriamhavard7621 Excuse me what? Is being Henry's daughter now a diagnosis of having secret children? Would you argue that Mary I had a secret baby with Reginald Pole because she was Henry's daughter? And how being Henry's daughter was in that respect any way different from being a daughter of any other monarch of the time? Logic not found.

Another great talent at the time of Shakespeare was John Webster. He was a huge success. He was the son of an artisan - a carriage maker. The highly successful author of The Revengers' Tragedy was Thomas Middleton. He was the son of a bricklayer. Another great talent of the time was Christopher Marlowe, who was born to Canterbury shoemaker John Marlowe. I could go on. You see ... posh doen't mean talented. And 'common' doesn't mean stupid. Many of the most eminent politicians of the time - Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell, for example, were of humble origin, so it was perfectly possible to base great success on an unpromising start. The pathetic idea that in order for a writer to be good he must be descended from a titled knob is very, very dumb. It is based on crashing snobbery and on the idea formed during the romantic period that good writing must be based entirely on personal experience. Almost all the Shakespeare canon is based on a source - a history, or an existing story. So your assertion is just plain wrong. Sorry. Unsurprisingly, Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, Marlowe wrote Marlowe, and Webster wrote Webster.

@@MrMartibobs I completely agree! This same "reasoning" was why many supporters of Anna Anderson, who claimed to be the Russian princess Anastasia, refused to accept DNA evidence proving she was actually a Polish factory worker, Fransziska Schanzkowska (bad attempt at spelling). She seemed so "regal" & "cultured", & no "peasant" could possibly fake that! Posh or rich people don't have more talent, but they DO have more opportunity, so you end up with a circular argument (like "why aren't there more successful women, or black people, etc?") Also, if you're amused by the very idea of Kit Marlowe writing Shakespeare's work, & you haven't seen Upstart Crow, YOU MUST. It's written by Ben Elton, & David Mitchell is Shakespeare, which is reason enough to watch it imo!

Yes, all of this. Not to mention that Elizabeth was ready to show herself at the court to refute the pregnancy rumour when she heard about it in the time of interrogations.

Right! He had access to all that information at the local library! Or was it the magical tavern where tradesmen/lawyers/sailors/doctors all freely swapped stories detailing the intricacies of their professions while also giving specific geographical details about Italy and France? (I can never remember which it is. Embarrassing!)

his birthday date is actually shown to be between 1547 to 1550, Exact date is unknown. I think he was her son by Thomas seymour. too much evidence. Cecil marries his daughter to him, he is raised as a royal ward despite having a living mother. She did lose her virginity to Seymour and maybe begot a few more kids with dudley whom she was most definitely sexually active with.

The court was full of intrigue upon intrigue. The bastard children of kings and queens were often placed with noble families to hide their true lineage. This was a common practice. Often the true birthdate of a child would be changed in order to hide his/her true parentage. Also, the poacher and merchant from Stratford could not read nor write in English let alone read texts used in Shakespeare in their original Latin or Greek as the true author did. Whomever the true author of the plays and sonnets was, it was NOT the rube from Stratford.

my friend, her first child, she carried toward the end of her "10th" month before her near 15lb baby was born. Her and her husband were laid off their jobs. So they ended up on welfare. Back in those days for the state of Iowa, (1987ish), required babies born on the state had to go to Iowa City to have their babies. They had a policy to not do c-sections without a medical reason other than just a delayed labor. I believe they stopped that policy since. Barbaric practice! So she carried her son to 10mos, and was born 15lbs+, aspirated myconium (developed pneumonia), and a broken clavicle! (she also couldn't breast feed because of teeth; I know of another woman from the same area has the same story. I baby sat for this 2nd woman. 8m old, he was a tank to feed a bottle, we used big pillows to proper him up right, you couldn't hold that until feeding was done.) It IS possible for long gestation periods. And not rare.

I live in Oxford and there are a lot of old farts!!!

she's a master manipulator, politician, and liar. She certainly would have done antyhign for her reputaiton and throne.

even if it wasn't the truth.

Well, it's possible. You know what they say, "fact is stranger than fiction." 🤷

One might as well say the loser of a duel ‘committed or attempted to commit suicide’ because he agreed to a duel with a man who was more skilled than he was. Weasel excuses designed to ruin the winner’s reputation or just get him in trouble when duels were illegal.

Not a sabre, a rapier.

A: How do you know he never owned a book? B: What sources were untranslated? C: He had two daughters, one of which was provably literate. D: He got so many things about Europe wrong that it's no surprise he never traveled. E: The patron of his acting company was the Queen's cousin, who was her Lord Chamberlain. F: The plays also mention people and places from Shakespeare's home town, plus everyone said it was him, so it had to be him.

I agree. I think she was a true virgin because she was too smart to take a chance on ending her Queen ship with a bastard child.

*refraining from making a Six reference*

@@l.plantagenet She was only 14 at the time. A child, not the wise woman she became. Also, Thomas Seymour, we know took advantage of her. Even Kat Ashley admitted he was inappropriate with Elizabeth. If he got her pregnant whose to say she was not forced? He could have raped her. In my mind he at least molested her(by today's standards) even if there was no penetration. One thing for sure, Thomas Seymour caused his own death not only by how he treated his nephew the young king, but what he did to Elizabeth, King Edward's half sister. If anything, after living through that, no wonder Elizabeth never wanted to marry. That had to be pretty traumatic for her. Not only Thomas Seymour's unwanted advances but Edward Seymour had her interrogated. She could have easily been executed too if it have been proved Seymour had seduced her. and she may would have married him. Because, even if she had been raped, they would have seen it as seduced, and her as guilty. So she would have not admitted that. Look at the example of Mary Queen of Scots. Her third husband raped her, and she married him after that, as he knew she would to salvage her reputation. As the woman was usually blamed in that time period and that was the only way to salvage her reputation. Don't forget too with Elizabeth, Cecil was already her champion by then, he had the foresight to see she may would be queen one day, so he would have done whatever he could to have helped her out.

Of course the evidence to me is he was grooming her to marry him in case Katherine Parr died in child birth. after all she was 36 years old and it was her first pregnancy. He had to know there was a considerable chance she could die as even women in their 20's died in childbirth. Besides, even if Elizabeth had a child by him (there were rumors at the time) there is no evidence Edward deVere was her child.

And that's exactly how she wanted to be seen. It's amazing how she's still succeeding. There are things we would never know, even who she really was. As a monarch she had to present a certain image of herself, even more as a woman on the throne. But who she was privately? Who knows. I think there always is a possibility she wasn't a virgin. I'd be even more inclined to believe that.

It's been shown that Shakespeare's accounts of foreign countries are riddled with geographical errors and all the facts he does get right were found in a couple of a popular travel accounts of the time. Why do you think Shakespeare was incapable of doing some background research?

Plus he had written other stuff under his name and he was highly educated and high IQ. Shakespeare was not well educated as the son of a glove maker, but does not mean he could not have self educated himself if he was able to learn to read. that's the biggest argument they have about Shakespeare was that the working class did not know how to read and write.

@@ThePeachygal Shakespeare did not come from the "working class." His father was a craftsman and tradesman and his mother was from a lesser branch of the Arden family, an ancient noble family. Stratford had a school with Oxford educated teachers for the children of members of the Guildhall. Lists of students from those days have not survived, but we know the teachers' names and that they were paid better than Oxford profs. Since his father was active in town politics as well as the Guildhall, its practically impossible that he didn't attend this school. In The Merry Wives of Windsor, Shakespeare makes fun of one of those teachers. It's the only play he wrote about the middle class, and gives us insight into his childhood life.

No, not everything was possible. The claims must be based on evidence. And there's no evidence that Elizabeth had any children. In De Vere's case you only have to look at his birth date to understand that he can't be passed for Elizabeth and Thomas Seymour's child, I'm not even talking about other things. Seriously how gullible people can be?

Indigo you would be surprised

I have ancestors that were minor courtiers at that court, too. I'm a descendent of Kathryne Swynford through her first marriage and one of her children's line married into Drury family and then the Cecils. I know, ew lol. But you have to admire the Cecils to some degree. They were scrappy.

And even that is of much debate

The man who was killed or committed suicide by running into Oxford's sword is remarkably similar to the suicide of Brutus in Act V of Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar.

@@kareno7848 that man claims they are his works.

J Andrews any child of a monarch could be elevated to the throne if the Monarch chose to acknowledge and elevate said child. They would however not take presidence over a child of a legal marriage

Both Mary and Elizabeth were declared illegitimate by Henry. Legitimacy is a function of political expedience sometimes.

Kings and queen s from inheritance .today also in law in very few countrieis there is no illegitimate and legimate gap.although he aknowleged by his or father In most countries child cannot inherit father ,s properties with out wil Some couutrirs it is half than legimate children . So thoe dayas To be king you must be legimate.in england fot be a monarach If a child later legimated by parent,s marraiae cannoy bs monarach It is also valid today.

The bells ringing in my videos are just my church bells and they chime every 15 minutes. But here's a link to my Mary, Queen of Scots playlist - kzfaq.info/sun/PLepqWJ7TpkrIIC1eB75JBP8xYcqnqTHt6

Unless you're not a gullible idiot. Have you never seen a stage magician before?

What imaginary twins...?

What new nonsense is this?

@@carleennicholson7537 I'm curious about that, too.

Imaginary twins? Do tell.

@@juanasmith1901 Lol I never heard anyone said twins but rumors were going around that Seymour had gotten her pregnant in 1549. Supposedly started by a midwife who claimed she was blindfolded and taken to some unknown place and there she delivered a baby from a young girl with red gold hair who was of obvious nobility and possibly even royalty. Many believed it, others said the rumors were started by Thomas Seymour's enemies. However, no one back then ever said deVere was the child that did not come until modern times. Plus records say he was born the year before in 1548.

Compare Shakespeare's Sonnet 130 with Edward de Vere's "These Beauties Make Me Die." The poems do not share the same structure, but they do share imagery and sentiment. De Vere paints his love in glowing terms and complimentary sentiments. Shakespeare uses many of the the same terms and imagery, but it seems that he is looking at his subject with a more mature eye than the young de Vere. De Vere's youthful innocence pervades his poem, while Shakespeare is older and a bit jaded, but besides that the poems seem to spring from the same mind. Either Shakespeare read De Vere's poem, or they are the same person. “These Beauties Make Me Die” 1 What cunning can express 2 The favour of her face, 3 To whom in this distress 4 I do appeal for grace? 5 A thousand Cupids fly 6 About her gentle eye. 7 From whence each throws a dart, 8 That kindleth soft sweet fire, 9 Within my sighing heart, 10 Possessed by desire; 11 No sweeter life I try, 12 Than in her love to die. 13 The Lily in the field, 14 That glories in his white, 15 For pureness now must yield 16 And render up his right; 17 Heaven pictured in her face 18 Doth promise joy and grace. 19 Fair Cynthia’s silver light, 20 That beats on running streams, 21 Compares not with her white, 22 Whose hairs are all sunbeams; 23 Her virtues so do shine, 24 As day unto mine eyne. 25 With this there is a Red 26 Exceeds the Damask Rose, 27 Which in her cheeks is spread, 28 Whence every favour grows; 29 In sky there is no star 30 That she surmounts not far. 31 When Phoebus from the bed 32 Of Thetis doth arise, 33 The morning, blushing red, 34 In fair carnation wise, 35 He shows it in her face 36 As Queen of every grace. 37 This pleasant Lily white, 38 This taint of roseate red, 39 This Cynthia’s silver light, 40 This sweet fair Dea spread, 41 These sunbeams in mine eye, 42 These beauties make me die. Sonnet 130 My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun; Coral is far more red than her lips' red; If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun; If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head. I have seen roses damasked, red and white, But no such roses see I in her cheeks; And in some perfumes is there more delight Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks. I love to hear her speak, yet well I know That music hath a far more pleasing sound; I grant I never saw a goddess go; My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground. And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare As any she belied with false compare.

If true that would be repulsive as supposedly by that movie him and Elizabeth were lovers too.

I agree.... Hollywood ....

LOVE that movie ! British actors are the best !

Kerry Hughes I’m sure you’re right. Please don’t do any actual research behind this video.

Gary Allen remember that one time he hoarded grain during a famine? Or didn’t teach his daughters to read? LoL- classic De Vere

@@ericloscheider7433 DeVere DIDN'T teach his daughters to read. He had nothing whatever to do with them. They were raised and educated by their grandfather.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Sorry- you’re right and my apologies. I agree that Oxford did not in fact personally teach his daughters to read. I should explain- I was not being literal, but making a sarcastic joke, using irony. Speakers sometimes will exaggerate or bend the literal truth in order to make a larger point. Of course we know that education for the upper classes was a given, and not so for the rest of society. This is probably why Shakspere left such vast quantities of money to his alma mater, the Stratford grammar school, endowed scholars and artists, patronized places of learning, and left so much evidence of a person who valued intellect and creativity in his will.

@@ericloscheider7433 Just curious, but how much did ANYONE leave to the Edward VI school, which was fully funded by the Stratford Corporation? Did people even leave legacies to their alma mater back then? For that matter, did De Vere leave anything to Oxbridge? Or did he leave "... so much evidence of a person who valued intellect or creativity in his will"? How about his personal letters? Any evidence of his vast intellect anywhere in those? Nope. No will at all. His letters betray no hint of learning, of poetry, of knowledge about any of the subjects Shakespeare is supposed to have been master. Only a desperation for money and an obvious East Anglian accent (common among aristos) which is entirely at odds with the rhyming patters in Shakespeare's works.

There are no original copies of Shakespeare's plays existing. There are more printed copies of his plays than of any other Elizabethan playwright.

@@cathybaggott2873 That's rather odd. I wouldn't be surprised if some are sitting on a shelf in a library in some great house.

The manuscript of a play called Sir Thomas More survives. Shakespeare wrote three pages of it. It's in his handwriting, and it's in his writing style.

It is Spain, Andalucía.

Do you seriously think that someone who wanted to keep his head would sign his name in a manner to suggest he was a royal heir? If that were truly why he signed his name that way, do you think his contemporaries wouldn't notice?

And the "crown" was an earl's coronet.

It's an 'm' for multiply - 'x' was an 'm' before about 1610

​@@eddiedevereoxford4995 Thank you! Super kind of you to reply.

He only signed it that way on one document, and that's not how monarchs signed their names. Even if it were, the heir apparent does not become the monarch until one's predecessor is deceased. To style oneself thusly while one's predecessor is still alive is commonly known as "suicide". And De Vere's welfare check was £1,000, or about $300k. She gave it to him because it would look bad for a peer of the realm to be on the side of the road begging. James continued it after Elizabeth died and even after Edward died continued to give £500 to his son.

He was Edward, 7th Earl of Oxford, and the signature included an earl's coronet. I'm pretty sure the warrant was less than you say, but I've forgotten the source.

De Vere suggested to the Earl of Lincoln on the eve of Elizabeth's death that the peers of the realm should decide the succession, and suggested Lincoln's nephew, the Earl of Huntingdon. Lincoln suspected he was being set up, and reported De Vere to an official at The Tower. De Vere was broke and ill and therefore no threat to the succession, and so the official took no action.

Thank you. It's mine too. It IS commercialised, but it still has charm.

What do you mean by the Tudor stare?

He was a lord. All the nobels lived off the money the commoners made from working his lad through taxes and such. None "made a living" but rather lived off their people. Yes, there was some land management and settling of problems but the commoners paid to rent the land, and taxes, to use the land for their crops and such.

It's not CGI, it's where I live.

1. Shakespeare's works got all sorts of things wrong. He based the King of Navarre's noblemen on real people, but picked two Protestants and one Catholic. In real life they were mortal enemies. He gave both Venice and Vienna dukes, when neither had them, and he got all sorts of things wrong about Italy. 2. Shakespeare's contemporaries described him as uneducated. His plays were and are popular because you didn't and don't need a degree in the classics to understand them. His peers were always dropping references to Greek philosophy into their plays. Shakespeare didn't. 3. Anne, the daughter of a not-yet baron, got the chance to marry the (then) wealthy, and by all accounts dashing young heir of the oldest earldom in England. She didn't know he was a royal bastard, because that's batshit crazy nonsense. 4. After he had blown the largest fortune in England on high living, Elizabeth put him on the dole, it was unseemly for the preeminent earl of England to be a pauper. She did not leave anything to him in her will, as monarchs don't have wills. Everything they have is inherited by the next monarch. 5. All nobles look like that. They're arrogant by nature.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Venice had a doge which comes from the same word as "duke" -from the Latin "dux"It looks as if also that Shakespeare thought Vienna was a place in Italy probably because the name in English sounds Italian.Shakespeare may have got his knowledge of Italy from Italian literature of the Renaissance which was becoming very well known in England-a lot of his plots like Romeo and Juliet are from Italian sources and one of his plays (I forget which)is based on the great Italian Renaissance epic poet and dramatist Ariosto who was all the rage.

@@kaloarepo288 When The King's Men performed Merchant at court in 1604, they were called back to play it again the next day. My guess is that Robert Cecil said to James "Did you hear that? He said 'Duke', not 'Doge'." And James said "No way! Have them rewind it! Whadayaknow! They DID say 'Duke'!" Then Cecil said "Hey, they're actors. What do you expect? It's not like any of them have ever been to Venice."

shell matheis so was Mary and Anne.

Maybe

No.

Bacon had two wifes !

Gary Allen I agree. No way he was dour

@garyallen8824 You are incorrect that Bacon disapproved of Theatre.

It's all right here: Shakespearedocumented.org You're welcome.

@@Jeffhowardmeade I have searched this website and have not found any direct evidence from William Shaksper's lifetime to indicate he was a writer. Not one scrap.

@@josephhewes3923 Good thing you're not a detective. If you missed all of his contemporaries saying he was a poet, identifying him by name, by social rank, and by his other profession as an actor, if you missed the documents establishing his close association with the works and with the patrons who supported them, if you missed three pages of a manuscript in his own handwriting, I don't know what to say. They're all right there, for anyone who knows how to read.

@@Jeffhowardmeade I think Mark Twain was a great writer. He was wonderful with words. He was wonderful with his narratives. He was a wonderful writer. He was also a fiction. He didn't exist. Mark Twain was a pen name. I think Hillary Clinton did a wonderful job on her book, It Takes a Village. What a wonderful book. Wonderfully written... But not by Hillary Clinton. It was written by a GHOST writer. If you you think all of the references to "William Shakespeare" as a poet or writer tell us anything about the "actual" writer, your education has surely let you down. The name "William Shakespeare" was a pen name.

@@josephhewes3923 Since you can't provide any evidence that William Shakespeare was anyone other than the guy all of his fellow said he was, and yet you believe it anyway, then common sense has let you down. When a well-placed contemporary referred to William Shakespeare by name, and called him a gentleman, and referred to him as an actor or a member of the Lord Chamberlain's or King's Men, he can only have been referring to one person. Everybody knows that Mark Twain was a pen name for Samuel Clemens, because he talked openly about it. The publisher announced that Barbara Feinman would be the actual author of It Takes a Village, even though Clinton, herself, was stingy with credit. No such evidence exists for any claimant to the Shakespeare canon...except Shakespeare himself. There's no evidence that it was a pen name, no matter how many wild stories you invent about the name's origin.