You are right on the mark, Jovan. Life expectancy is not the same as the average age at death.

It might be safer to say that 60-70 was average for those who lived to old age. Shakespeare outlived his three younger brothers who all reached adulthood. Nearly all of his fellow poets died younger than he did. Among all the poets of the era I could think of, only Dekker, Jonson, Chapman, and Drayton lived past 60.

Coming very soon... may be on my other channel, TheUntoldPast however. But we'll see!

My step-grandmother was a direct descendant of the great Bard. She looked like a hillbilly, and lived in the Boston Mountains of Arkansas. But she was an accomplished artist, and was one of the first female graduates of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Shakespeare has no living descendants. He had four grandchildren, only one of whom lived to adulthood, and she (Elizabeth Hall Barnard) died childless in 1670. Your step-grandmother might be descended from his sister, Joan Hart, who is the only child of John and Mary Shakespeare to have living descendants.

@@Jeffhowardmeade That's very interesting. My step-grandmother's maiden name was Hilma Hart.

@@steffenritter7497 That's such an amazing legacy. Joan Shakespeare was born in 1569, and named in honor of an older sister who died in infancy. She married William Hart, a hat maker, who died a week before her brother in April 1616. In her brother's will, she was given £20, a lifetime tenancy in the house now known as Shakespeare's "Birthplace" (probably hers, too), and all of Shakespeare's clothes. As Shakespeare issued his will before William Hart died, it's unknown if the bequest of clothing was for him to wear, or to sell. Joan had four children: William, Mary, Michael, and Thomas. Mary and Michael both died in childhood and William never married. Your step-grandmother was then descended though Thomas (1605-1661). Joan died in 1646 at the ripe old age of 77.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Fascinating information ... thanks very much. I've been fascinated by Shakespeare's works since I was a child ... long before I heard of my step-grandmother's lineage. Indeed, I've acted in semi-professional and amateur productions of some of his plays.

Wearing gold earrings my self - I was literally thinking the same thing! There’s a few videos on here explaining that if you just search it up 😌

@@MithrandirAKAGandalf Thanks Gandalf, my oldest friend.

The earring in the Chandos Portrait and the floppy collar were emblems of a poet. Whether Shakespeare actually wore either or if they were simply added by the artist to announce "Poet!" is unknown.

@@AbominableFoMan You’re welcome my fellow Shire’ling 🧙‍♂️

Don'y know but i always wondered HOW it was done in primitive times painlessly and hygenically. Probably with an ice cube. With me it was "whack" sudden shock of the gun, but zero pain, no infections.

Yes. Ben Jonson wrote rather fondly of him and very likely was at his funeral. He wrote the forward to the Folio.

Jonson eulogized Shakespeare, but never commented directly on his death. We have nothing from Drayton about Shakespeare at all. The only account of Shakespeare's death comes from a local legend written down by Stratford Vicar John Ward in 1661.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Thank you!

If so, why did he get so many things wrong about Italy?

[Smiling]. Interesting you should ask. My own thought is that we are probably not going to find much more paper dedicated to Shakespeare in records and things, and the greater good would be served by digging him and his family up (the plan would be to put everyone back, of course: nobody would be doing this to be ghoulish or to display a long dead man and his clan like a circus sideshow. It would be done to find out more about the man as other options keep getting tighter.) The Shakespeare family save for his granddaughter are all buried in Holy Trinity in Stratford and frankly the C of E will probably throw the mother of all fits and deny access, but there is a lot to learn.... 1) We can figure out what they all looked like in life from the bones and from DNA (eye color, hair, stuff life that) Such could help suss out fake portraits from real ones...maybe even find a few of Anne heretofore unknown 2) We can find out how old Anne Hathaway really was when she passed, give or take a few years 3) On the trillion to one somebody goes digging in a field and finds the body of a young boy or a plague pit, comparing that DNA could confirm or deny the final resting place of Hamnet Shakespeare (again, unlikely, but I am saying it COULD be done.) Anybody else dug up in the general area could confirm other relatives over the ages, be an asset to learning more of the history of the area (a big fat plague pit is not to be sneezed at) 4) *You actually can find out how Shakespeare and other family members died.* Some diseases leave a mark. We can find out if he ever had smallpox, if he got the clap or the plague, and a whole host of other information: for all we know the real reason Shakespeare retired by 1613 was over a broken leg and a nasty whoopsy on an icy patch. That would show up in a skeleton. 5) We also might be able to delve deeper into a big mystery: what happened to Shakespeare's skull. There is the possiblity of grave robbery in the case of Shakespeare in the 1700s and a geophys exploration popped up no signs of a head. Any DNA test done on Shakespeare's remains would need to be done anyway to see if the skull DNA matches the body DNA, assuming it is still whoomping around somewhere. BONUS: there is a small chance of grave goods. The Shakespeares were well to do and the high altar is a place of honor. Did Shakespeare or his family spring for lead coffins? Only one way to know.

@@marykatherinegoode2773 The Ground Penetrating Radar used on Shakespeare's grave found no evidence of grave goods, but cannot differentiate between human remains and the soil they are buried in. They did discover evidence that the grave stone had been resized and propped up from beneath with brickwork, but there's no way of knowing if the remains were left in place, shoved aside, or removed. The 1879 article in The Argosy about the theft of Shakespeare's skull was a sensationalist piece of fiction, purporting to be a family secret handed down for generations.

@@Jeffhowardmeade First off, Coriolanus? Really? - I'm sorry, but Ben Jonson whooped the tar out of Shakespeare with Sejanus. It was just a better play. Second, if there is one thing I'm tired of, it is pussyfooting. We are never going to know exactly 100% what is down there until we get a shovel. That was my point. Basic forensics could reveal what exactly happened with more invasive tactics. We can speculate until the cows come home. We won't know anything definitive until we actually try. And like I said, quite clearly, In the scenario like the one I describe, there will be no displaying of Will Shakespeare and his brood like a circus sideshow afterwards. His final wishes were quite clear. He also seems to have been terrified of the charnel house once attached to holy Trinity and didn't want his remains burned. He probably spent a very large amount of his life commuting or on the road - "cursed be he that moves my bones." "Master Shakespeare, wherever you are, there are questions we have that only your remains can answer. The plan is to put you back where we found you, exactly where we found you. Back to bed, in a manner of speaking-back to your eternal rest.") Third I have also read an account where it's possible Shakespeare died of food poisoning - pickled herring. Such a thing would've been served at the local pub of the times. It's no more than an anecdote. But the tech exists to prove/disprove it as a possibility. Fourth, we have all this miscellaneous potpourri, in a manner of speaking. Time to disprove or prove. Frankly I am alarmed at the lack of ambition or plain old balls. Time to grow a pair. Time to allow certain nudniks in academia in Britain to Slap on a pair of headphones and start listening more to the Indiana Jones theme song. [Humming to self] It could lead to nowhere, and that is OK. But at least the merry go round of speculation can finally stop. I will be blunt - Richard the third died almost 100 years before the birth of Shakespeare, yet nobody batted an eye when the data kept pouring out. You mention the Bard of Avon, left in more intact building with things under your feet that geophys can miss, and everybody freakin' loses their minds!!!

@@marykatherinegoode2773 Sejanus is totally a better play, but I find the character of Coriolanus more intriguing and personally identifiable (except for the mommy issues and gay subtext). I'm also okay with not knowing the specifics about Shakespeare. As Dickens said, it's "a fine mystery."

Not with scholars; with conspiracy theorists.

@@Jeffhowardmeade nope. Actual scholars

@@alexwilliams5799 Not if you ask real scholars.

@@Jeffhowardmeade yes even real scholars.

@@alexwilliams5799 Real scholars value evidence. It's their stock in trade. Anti-Stratfordians reject evidence in favor of goofball hypotheses. Anti-evidence = not a scholar.

Is it possible you don’t exist?

@@timsplanet2 "I think not" said Descartes (as he disappeared).

@@rgnyc A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks "are you a horse?" The horse says "I think not" and promptly ceases to exist. You know, like Descartes said? I think therefore I am? I guess I should have lead with that, but that would have been putting Descartes before the horse.

To Serve Man Haha