It had to be someone like [ Edward de Vere ] well educated , a person of the court . . Writing about political intrigue was probably a life and death matter . . 🧛🏻‍♂️

So sorry to hear of Tom's passing, he contributed so much and in an ongoing way!

How sad. It was a wonderful talk, I had hoped to meet him to tell him so, and to cheekily remind him that Samuel Clemens coined the name Mark Twain when he was 27 years old in Virginia City, NV. Otherwise, I learned a lot and am sorry to hear of his passing. Thanks for letting us know.

Edward De Vere

The Earldom of Oxford actually had nothing to do with the town of Oxford. He was from East Anglia. The title Earl of Oxford was one chosen by his ancestor Aubrey De Vere from four possibilities offered.

The person you are referring to wouldn't have the education, exposure and experience to write the works of Shakespeare.

RIP Sir 💔

Plese see Alexander Waugh videos for contemporary doubters

Watch Alexander Waugh's presentations on the subject on KZfaq and the case is closed tightly.

Oxfordianism is growing.

Yes, Macbeth gives me a problem too. But since we don’t know how de vere died, only when, 1604. He could have penned it for the new King. He also would have known Elizabeth was getting near the end and who the new king would be. Love Macbeth, but upon reflection, might not be the death knell for de vere that I originally thought. I think the De Vere theory is correct though.

And half the plays were published only 7 years after Shakspere of Stratford died, but that never seems to bother anyone, due to Stratfordian circular thinking.

The colleges and prep school teach Stratfordian, unfortunately.

The First Folio is dedicated to two brothers, the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery. The Earl of Montgomery was the Earl of Oxford's son-in-law, married to his daughter Susan. The Earl of Pembroke had at one time been in negotiations to marry Oxford's daughter Bridget. Ben Jonson, who is responsible for most, if not all, of the prefatory material in the First Folio and the writings on the Stratford monument, was a longtime associate of Pembroke. The brothers are most likely the financiers of the First Folio. Many scholars believe that Jonson is also the ghostwriter behind Heminges and Condell, Shakspere's two actor friends, who are credited, probably falsely, with making the First Folio possible.

Stratford Shakspere purchased his house in Stratford in 1597 - 1 year before he was mentioned as a playwrite - and it cost more than all the money he hadn't yet made. Clearly someone was financing him, but exactly who and why is a mystery. It seems likely that the Authorship of Shake-speare plays a part...

He wasn’t just an actor. He was barely an actor. He had landholdings, was a money lender, a farmer. He also partly owned the Globe theatre, and was part of an acting troupe that entertained royalty, on the crowns dime.

Shaksper seems to have been a financier, a money lender, an investor in, among other things, theaters and the material performed. What Broadway calls an Angel, or Hollywood calls a Money Guy. He also invested in commodities, tithes and real estate. There are over 70 documents showing his business dealings. There are none, zero, zip, nada demonstrating he was a playwright and poet.

Yep, I ascribe to the Peter Amundsen(sp?) school of thought, that it was akin to the “William Shakespeare Project”… Oxford, Bacon, and a few others working together/in the know; Which would also explain how the author is an expert of farming, science, law, theatre, statecraft, etc etc lol

Some have made this argument, for example suggesting that references to "equivocation" relating to the Gunpowder Plot in 1605 are related to references in Macbeth. But the argument turns out to be very weak and has actually been repeatedly demolished by authorship skeptics. "Equivocation" was a concept widely discussed in the 1580s too. You're referring generally here to the argument often known as the (alleged) "1604 problem" about Oxford. But as discussed on the SOF's "Authorship 101" page: "Despite frequent claims to the contrary, no Shakespearean work has ever been proved to be written after 1604. Both Stratfordian and Oxfordian theories depend on the idea that many plays were first published years after they were written, even after both purported authors died. Both theories accept the possibility of co-authorship and posthumous revision." "In late 1604, King James had eight Shakespeare plays produced at court, perhaps a tribute to Oxford. James patronized Shakspere's theatre company, the King's Men. Yet stunningly, when his beloved teenage son Prince Henry died in 1612, causing a paroxysm of national grief, King's Man Shakspere was ... coldly silent? ... There's a pretty simple and obvious answer: "Shakespeare" the actual author was dead by then. When the Sonnets were published in 1609, the dedication referred to the poet as "ever-living," a term only applied to the dead (see Reason to Doubt #12). It could not possibly refer to Shakspere, who lived until 1616, but yet again fits perfectly with Oxford. ... Scholars generally agree the Sonnets were completed by 1604. No references to later events have been found in them. Sonnet 107 alludes to the 1603 death of Queen Elizabeth and the poet states that "death to me subscribes" as well. Oxford died a year later. ... It's actually Shakspere of Stratford (not Oxford) who is confounded by 1604 (and 1616) problems." See generally FAQ #4 on that same "Authorship 101" page.

It’s a devotion to an ancient religion…….of lies

This is manifestly not true and can only be said by someone who has no familiarity with the actual paper trail of the early Shakespeare allusions.

Do you think the presenter (and the audience) didn't know this? That was indeed the whole point. 😄

Samuel Clemens chose the name Mark Twain while he worked on the river boats on the Mississippi River. Mark Twain was yelled out while measuring the depth of the river, and it meant a safe depth of water.

In Elizabethan times, those hyphens usually implied a fake name.

DeVere died in 1604, the year after James I was crowned King of England.

That`s easy. No influence. The Bible was commissioned by King James in 1604 and finished in 1611. Dever died in 1604. To have any input he would have had to pre write great tracts of Biblical scholarship and have them fed to the body of scholars that were writing the new Bible post decease. Even had he been alive it is difficult to see anything spiritual in the real life of the Earl of Oxenford. Debauched,fickle ,a pederast (or paedophile in modern parlance) and as Cecil put it "Has abandoned his duty to God". Not a great candidate for the Commission tasked with the great work ,especially as his arse was roasting in hell by the established view of the time.

De Vere is reported to have died on June 24, 1604, but the date itself makes this suspect. June 24 = 6/24, a number sequence that refers to de Vere through his name, which has 6,2,and 4 letters (Edward 6 De 2 Vere 4) and his title (Earl 4 Of 2 Oxford 6). June 24 was also considered to be Midsummers Day, so it would be quite a coincidence that Vere died on the day one of Shakespeare's plays is named for. (The 624 code also appears in other place.) There is a rumour that he faked his death and retired to the Isle of Man, where his daughter Elizabeth (de Vere) Stanley was the first female administrator, and that he spent the remaining years of his life in repentance which he did by YES creating the King James Bible. Despite the claims that the KJV was written by groups of scholars, the evidence is less than convincing, and rather inexplicable when held up against the work itself, which reads seemlessly as if it were written by one person (that person being William Shakespeare), something which would not be expected by different groups supplying various sections. Check out John Anthony's extensive analysis www.youtube.com/@johnanthony8653/videos

Lincoln was self taught in law

Reading has always been how most learned persons became highly educated. Authors all recommend voracious reading to become an accomplished writer

And Twain wrote what he knew. This then is a point for the Earl.

The anonymous 1589 Art of English Poesie states that many noblemen would be known as great authors if they would allow their "own" name to be put on their works. It also says Oxford was one of the greatest courtier poets and best author of comedies. Yes, insiders would have known, but not the general public, who might have then read between the lines and realized how many powerful people were being spoofed in the plays.

The Lord Chamberlain (Baron Hunsdon, aka the Queen's cousin) was the sponsor of the plays during Elizabeth's life. It was clearly propaganda no matter who wrote it. If De Vere wrote the plays, there is no reason why he wouldn't have had his own company of players perform them and hog all the glory for himself.

Shakespeare was a member of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, an acting company sponsored by Baron Hunsdon. His symbol, which they wore on their livery (uniforms) was a swan.

Because he did. A rural man could not possibly have known the inner workings of the nobility like Oxford did. It’s easy to write about rural life, not so easy to write about intimate details of the monarchy.

No serious academic is willing to risk their reputation by openly going against the groupthink on this issue, but some 18% admitted to the NYT anonymously that they have strong doubts about it.

There were no public libraries in the 1600s, the first one opened in 1850

Bruuuuuhhhhh

Einstein not accounted for his work??? He published his results throuout his life and under his own name too.

Nonsense. Nobody questions Sir Issac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, or even Ovid, the author who inspired Shakespeare and died in 43 AD. There is more biographical information about Plato as the author of The Republic than of Sheakespeare. Plato's student Aristotle, whose genius and breadth of knowledge rivaled Shakespeare's, has never been questioned as the author of the work attributed to him. He wrote about physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics and government.

Michael Rowsell, Genius uses the material that it has to hand. In the case of Einstein, we know his father worked for an electrical company. We know the mathematics books that Einstein read at age twelve. We know where he graduated and where he got his PhD. Now let's take Leonardo da Vinci, bastard child of a small town notary. We know he was the child of a highly literate family, and that the precise time of his birth was recorded in his Grandfather's diary. . We know that his Uncle Francesco commenced teaching him science as a child. We know that when he was 14, his father moved to Florence so his son could be apprenticed to the largest art workshop of his day. The skills that he learnt as an artist included training him to observe accurately. This he later applied to his scientific observations. He learnt the mathematics of linear perspective, metallurgy, paint chemistry, and anatomy. We understand his process of studying science because he meticulously recorded his observations, his testing of theories, and his conclusions in several thousand pages of script. . In other words, Leonardo's creative genius was amazing, but we know EXACTLY where the KNOWLEDGE, the basic tool to which he APPLIED his genius, came from. With Shakespeare, we know that he MAY HAVE gone to Grammar School. We know that he could sign his name using an ornate and old-fashioned script. We can presume he owned no books at the time of his death, because none are mentioned in his will. He appears never to have travelled abroad. Since he did not attend University, he didn't have access to a library. He COULD have lived, or frequently visited the home of some person wealthy enough to have a library..... but there is no evidence of this. So there is no way to account for Shakespeare’s detailed knowledge of History, Classics, Law and foreign countries. He could not acquire this knowledge without extensive reading and/or travel. There were NO public libraries. There was no internet. An inventive imagination does not provide a knowledge of Henry V's military campaign in France. An inventive imagination does not provide a clear picture of rivalries between noble families in the society of an Italian principality which is VERY DIFFERENT to any society existing in England at that date. The writer of Shakespeare's plays KNEW about these things, and a great many more. This was a scholarly person who had access to a great deal of knowledge, both literary and experiential.

Per Oskarsson So did Shakespeare! And also, what Michael is saying is, if he (E) had written 500 years ago, who knows? Record keeping wasn’t exactly like it is now. And take into account fires, lost papers, etc. Try to find some paperwork on your ancestors. Doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, or do many things that weren’t written down, or did and have been lost.🤷‍♀️

@@peroskarsson8455 Under his own name, just like Shakespeare did.