This was fascinating. Alexander Waugh has an extraordinary eye for following hidden (and not coincidental) clues, and then weaves a plausible connection between them. Thanks so much!
all of your presentations are wonderful. thank you for sharing this work. you've elucidated some complicated and cryptic info with clarity and ease that's a delight to take in.
Beautifully done Alexander, a fascinating dive into the various mysteries surrounding the monument. I'm hoping you tell us more about de Vere's masonic role, etc.... can't wait to see if you can squeeze some blood out of a stone ... mason!
It's so much fun watching these again. I am such a lousy student, I have most of what you've told me mixed up or forgotten. I didn't realise Jonson is perched up there on or after the wall. Drayton is slap bang on the centre on that diagram. I'm more certain than ever that their eyes, so the bridge of their noses, will be at perfect triangles to within half an inch of the very centre of the monument via the Abbey floor. I also believe Spencer will be exactly deep enough for your 30-60-90 to be also astonishingly accurate. That wall looks like you and me had built it, I don't know if that's subterfuge. Everything else has been put there to honour not just De Vere but also Dee and Hiram Abiff and draw a line from Jabal. They will have tried their very hardest to get their masonry absolutely bang on.
Truly, thoroughly enjoying your scholarly work. Absent dramatic addition and titillating rumour of telly "documentaries", the research stands quite sufficiently on it's own. The process of occultation, the numerical indicators, brilliance worked to create, and overtly placed knowledge makes one, truly drives one, to think about the reason behind the scherrade. More specifically, to what purpose or hide what associations? Even an adopted heir wouldn't necessitate such workings. Sincerest appreciation for your diligence. Mahe Ohna ✌️ Favour to you and ALL
Draitons monument looks like it had 6-2-4 encoded in it as well. Though, maybe I'm just excited and seeing things. From the bottom up, 6 lines end in "E", 2 lines end in "T", and 4 lines end in "E" (if you count 1631 as sixteen thirty onE).
Of course you may already know that the Drayton family is essentially the de Vere family who changed their name after one of their estates Drayton House. So it makes perfect sense that their graves align in the way you are suggesting. In turn it also fits your theory even better that they are actually of the same family. Interesting stuff. Thank you.
A very interesting presentation. Thanks very much. There are a few odd things about Drayton's monument, aren't there? Erratic capitalisation of verbs; a capital L in the middle of the first "GLorye"; "cannot" rendered "canõt" -- i.e., "canont" -- and so on. I'm with you on such things being deliberate and careful. Any idea on possible senses of these?
Regarding the inscription on Ben Jonson's monument, I see "O R A R E" as orare from the Latin oraculum which means to speak or to pray. The inscription then suggests "Speak" Ben Jonson or "Pray Thee" Ben Jonson. Just a curious thought.
Thank you lospark68. There is reference to this topic in a presentation called 'George Vertue Knew' and an interesting discussion about it followed in the comments.
Thank you both, I just made a comment about Ben Johnson's Monument. It's crying out to be decoded... but I'm not clever enough to do it. Also it appears to me that the three masks st the bottom is a face and two masks.
Amazing presentation, Alexander. I have followed your discoveries from the very first video that you uploaded. With each video you are building a bigger and bolder case until, eventually, the truth can no longer be ignored. My only question is: why would 18th century freemasons such as Burlington and Pope go to such trouble to conceal Edward de Vere's identity by upholding a myth that at the time the monument was commissioned no longer served anyone? And what could possibly be gained by modern freemasons keeping their knowledge of the true identity of the author and his burial site a secret? Secrets are usually kept for a reason. Why is it that in 2019 anyone would make a point of hiding the name of a poet who died 400 years ago? Stratford-upon-Avon will try to maintain the status quo for very obvious reasons... but the truth will out and the question is: who would have a vested interest in keeping the truth buried and why? 🤔
Thank you CirceEnchants. I am not a Freemason and cannot read their minds but as far as I understand them they keep secrets and it is not their policy ever to betray them. If people like me come along and unveil these secrets their attitude is to say that ‘God has decided that our secret should no longer be a secret’ but it is never the Freemason’s task to release a secret to the public that he has learned under oath in his Lodge. The Royal Arch, it seems, wished to honour Oxford (their former Grand Master I suspect) without betraying his identity as 'Shakespeare' and without stating an outright lie (i.e. that the author was Stratford-Shakspere). I have no doubt that this is what Oxford himself would have ordained. It was he after all who decided to erase his own identity (a very Masonic thing to do) and he who would expect the brotherhood of Masons to respect his wishes even after his death. So they honoured him in 1623 and again 1740 as ‘Shakespeare’ - in strange ambiguous ways, some of which I highlight in this presentation.
The mythos of "the Divine William" of Stratford still serves to hide the words and deeds of actual personages that de Vere recorded in sometimes excruciating detail in the plays and poems. And who would these persons be? Only the likes of Elizabeth "the Virgin Queen" Tudor (please!) herself, William and Robert Cecil, in fact practically anyone who was anyone during the entirety of the age. Were the realisation to be made, the history of the age would have to be literally, completely re-written, and even now there would be political and social shockwaves from some of the realisations. Not least would be the revelation that Will Shaxper wasn't a prototypical "working class hero", and that the debt of acknowledgement and respect owed for the works of Shakespeare is actually due one of the quintessentially high-born and privileged, of the kind we've largely been taught to dismiss as inconsequential to learning and progress, if not to outright despise.
Fascinating and beautifully done. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Waugh and others. It rings true. “Uncarved” sounds right, makes sense, and is much more poetic. Simon Miles seems controlling, and I feel, is kind of insulting in his use of the word “cult.”Furthermore, Mr. Waugh’s understanding of the T, Taurus, alpha and omega/Hebrew, etc. also rings true. I hope it is not too cultish of me, but the first portrait I saw of de Vere, “Oxford” felt like Yes, there he is! There is a subtle mind. A man in full.
I'm fascinated by your (and Alan Green plus others) research into this - have linked your channel in a recent vid I made (and took a v short screengrab animation of part of Alan's findings that you (I presume) made - really hope you ok with that..if not let me know and I'll edit out - I should have asked first of course - apologies). I'm keen to understand this topic more - I hope to be making more vids in future - may I ask you if you would mind if I on occasion used small clips from your uploads ?- of course I would cite you / link to your channel etc if I did - it's just in the interests of bringing this to more peoples attention. Totally understand if you'd prefer I didn't. And lastly - I wondered if you'd considered the names Rosencrantz and Guildernstern - I'm sure you have - I thought the 'rose wreath' could be a nod to the persecuted Rosicrucians (Kranz is also an old German name with some perhaps interesting connection?) - the gold star of course must have great symbolism. I'll link my vid - it's just an 'intro/teaser' vid to hopefully get people interested: ua-cam.com/video/11z8qw_45iA/v-deo.html
It’s interesting the ratio of 6-2-4. Maybe it’s been mentioned before but Edward died June 24, 1604. June is the 6th month, followed by the 2-4 of his death date. 6-2-4.
@@jeffmeade8643 very interesting... I knew there was some switch up with the calendar in 1582 where they dropped 10 days and switch to the Gregorian calendar, but I didn't realize that Queen Elizabeth I refused to go along with it. I don't think it changes the fact that June was considered the 6-month.
On the slide showing Burlington, Kent, and Pope, I notice they're all wearing red "bonnets" and it made me think of De Vere's description of Adonis in Titian's portrait in his private studio. You mention that De Vere was a Freemason. Is there significance to this?
Well it would be if it ever happened. If you start with 17 you can find a date to fit. There is no evidence that he was buried or "reinterred" in the Abbey at all. The argument that reinternments were never recorded is not good evidence.
@@colinallan1962 Alexander Waugh found an unpublished manuscript written by de Vere's nephew Percival Golding circa 1623 which says explicitly that his uncle was buried in Westminster. Alexander has a video series Where is He Really Buried and I would recommend viewing them from the first to the last. The Golding reference comes at the end of the series where Alexander talks of the Freemasons (yes, those people) who knew where he was buried. They placed an allegorical statue above his resting place which used to be within a small chapel inside of Westminster known as the Chapel of St. Blaise, who just happened to be a saint who blesses throats. So there you have something to go by.
@@ronroffel1462 There are 2 Veres buried in Westminster in 1609 neither of them Oxford.The 18th Earl of Oxford was buried nearby in 1625. No evidence of the 17th Earl being buried there and no reason to disguise/omit evidence of his internment. The 17th's burial is recorded as Hackney. His widow's will in November 1612 asks that she be buried alongside him in Hackney churchyard. She died in December. Golding may well have believed that like other members of the family Oxford was in Westminster. He was writing some time after 1619. Clearly the widow was in on this ? She knew her husband was buried in WA.? This was a secret.? Oh no, that can’t be right because Golding is broadcasting it and Waugh is relying on it. In my experience WILLS are normally the most reliable documents being made in fear of God. In 1740 the statue of Shakespeare in WA says that he is buried in Stratford. In other words the identity of the real writer must ALWAYS be concealed. Why? Was Venus and Adonis too bawdy to be associated with Oxford ? If there was a fear that he had upset rulers by his works, that time had long since passed. Enoch Powell complained that Shakespeare could not be Shakespeare because he had not left “ his most valuable possession- his manuscripts- “ in his will. As I understand it Oxford left neither will nor manuscripts. Perhaps they too have been destroyed to keep a secret.
@@colinallan1962 Where is de Vere's will, then? It has disappeared along with many letters and other documents which Robert Cecil most likely either squirreled away or destroyed. If you want to know why Oxford concealed his name and why his relatives didn't want to reveal his writing activities, I would suggest reading up on several things such as the following: the stigma of printing fiction, poetry, and drama (not theology, military history, law or other non-fiction by the way) by aristocrats, censorship in Elizabethan and Jacobean England (there were at the most 26 printers allowed to operate in England during Queen Elizabeth's time and each one had a censor attached to it), the lowly status of actors and the ill-repute public playhouses had (actors were considered just above vagabonds my many people in society and playhouses were the hangouts of petty criminals and places where adulterers would make trysts), and how de Vere's family and descendants were in positions to put pressure on writers and nobles to keep quiet without needing to lift a finger, and other topics of history which English literature students are so fond of ignoring when it comes to the SAQ. Put together, the history of the period explains why de Vere concealed his writing activities. Read up on his life story (Nina Green has a brilliant biography based on the documentary evidence at her site oxfordshakespeare.com) or if you are open-minded enough, go to the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship website to see what Stratfordians have been ignoring for around 100 years. Unless, of course, you fear knowing more than you do now about what Alexander and Oxfordians are talking about. It was de Vere's family and descendants, not King James who were putting pressure on writers to keep secret. They had eyes and ears everywhere. Imagine trying to reveal the dirt on Kim Jong Un while living in North Korea and you will get a good idea what sort of situation writers at the time faced. The fact that we have no surviving will by him means little as his widow would have taken his manuscripts; they would not have been left to his daughters or son while she was still alive. As I mentioned above, Robert Cecil took control over documents about de Vere and how history would perceive his brother-in-law; he did it through patronage of books like Thomas Miles' A Catalogue of Honour published in 1610 in which de Vere's accomplishments were neglected. Here is a fact for you to digest: a few weeks after the First Folio was published in November 1623, Ben Jonson's study burned down (it was December 23rd to be exact). Jonson was a primary editor of the plays (not the actors named in the epistle who were not known as writers or editors) and he lost years' worth of work and if the surviving manuscripts were still in his study, then that meant they were destroyed in the fire. Jonson wrote Execrations Upon Vulcan a long poem published after his death which hints that he knew who ordered the fire, but could do nothing about it. And yes, there is mystery surrounding his death (read the 2004 paper by Christopher Paul in the Oxfordian for more on the story, if you dare), but the argument against Shakspere the grain merchant is mounting and the only way supporters can defend the centuries-long myth is by nit-picking and ignoring contradictory evidence. That is hardly good scholarship or being open-minded.
@@ronroffel1462 Thank you very much for your closely argued and cogent response Here is your starter for 10. Oxford was a well known playwright in his lifetime. He also had love poetry published . ( According to that fount of wisdom Wikipedia, the first to do so!). He had an intimate involvement with the theatre and theatre players . To adopt a Waughism ; everybody knew. Of all the people to choose as worried by the stigma of being a playwright you could not have chosen a more unlikely candidate. Most importantly he was as you know " best for comedie. " Comedy was bawdy at this time. Very Fedeau, innuendo and scatalogical. For somebody who didn't want to lower himself in public esteem he had obviously lost the plot. His plays were performed at court . One assumes the aristos could read and write. The Quartos were published for those who could do the same. Every one of AW's " knew " is opaque. However there must have been somebody who read Shakespeare and said " but this is Oxford's play, I saw it last year.!!" Sadly there is no young boy to expose the Emperor's new clothes. I could go on but this is only a starter. Isn't the Birthplace Trust appalling. Full marks to AW. I am glad you brought up Ben Johnson. It is quite clear to me that Everyman in and out of his humour was written by De Vere. EVER ( Vere ) Y ( the ). Which is revealed as VERE, THE MAN in and out of his humour. The bust in the church of Shakespeare is also appalling. It is clearly a later reinterpretation. ( There is evidence from the civil war of restoration) My personal view is that this shows John Shakespeare. Will always wanted to have his father honoured and the coat of arns was as much for his father as himself.
Re the double equestrian etching. The Latin word mola means millstone. The mullet in the De Vere crest comes from the Latin word mola. The two Henries are wearing millstone ruffs. The revolving star in the stirrup is a molette, which shares the same etymology. That is three references to MOLA (four if your count the two millstone ruffs). Is this a TTT moment? Is the second millstone ruff a quaternary hidden in a Trinity? :-)
I'm a bit confused. How can the dedication to the sonnets, which was published in 1609, point to the location of De Vere's final burial place if he was not re-interred there until 1619?
Thank you ZZ, you will find the answer to all this at the De Vere Society 'Hidden Truths in Written and Pictorial Notes - First Shot at a New Chronology', DVSN Vol. 24. No. 2 (April 2017), pp. 42-44.
De Vere's widow wrote her will in November 1612 asking to be buried alongside her husband - specifically in Hackney churchyard. She died in December 1612.
@@colinallan1962 Not in the churchyard. Nelson made that mistake. Oxford was buried within the chancel at Hackney. All this is covered in the above mentioned article. The reinterment from Hackney to Westminster took place I believe c. 1619, certainly within the reign of James I according to Oxford's learned cousin Percival Golding.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I didn't know you had evidence that he was buried in the Chancel.I understood his grave was unknown, his widow having asked for a monument to them both in her will in 1612 but none had been erected. This would seem to be a very important piece of evidence. To dig De Vere up from the chancel would have required a dispensation and if you have found a record of the chancel burial there ought to be records of the exhumation ? Also the entry of De Vere's burial should surely have mentioned that he was put in the chancel - a prominent position -and not simply buried as records show and why didn't his widow not add the words "in the chancel" when she made the request to be buried near him ? A burial in the chancel at that time would surely have indicated a tomb. As we know there was no monument to him by 1612; are we to assume he was simply under a slab? Also as I understand it Percival Golding said nothing more than he was buried in Westminster. On the face of it he's just got it wrong. Other members of the family were buried there and doubtless he thought there was a family vault there because there was nothing in Hackney, the lack of monument having propelled De Vere and wife to obscurity. I may have missed it but I have not come across any evidence of either the disinterment or reinterment. Lastly, have you come across the resting place of his widow ? Do we know where she was actually buried because if we do, then De Vere should be close by. Was she buried in the chancel ? If she got her wish to be buried near him surely that would be the case. I take it that there are records of her burial. I bet there’s no mention of the chancel. Why didn’t she accompany him to Westminster. Seems somewhat misogynistic not to take her as well. She was clearly fond of him and didn’t want to be separated in death.
My inclination is that Royal Arch refers to the preservation of the actual Tudor line; which includes Henry Wriothsely as Edward de Vere's bastard with Queen Elizabeth and then Wriothsely's child with Penelope Rich; raised as Henry de Vere by Oxford, so he could legitimately carry-on as the 18th Earl of Oxford. Henry de Vere appears to have been the legitimate heir to the Tudor Monarchy.
Thank you for filing in l in a few gaps that were lost to me long ago. There was a time when mans worth was equated to that of gold/silver or brass, some would say that was the age of enlightenment... Perhaps they missed the most rarest and worthy and noble elements of Humanity.
Ben Johnsons Monument is making me crazy! "O RARE BEN : JOHNSON" just shouts out to be an anagram of something... but I'm not clever enough to work it out. The three masks underneath look like a face and two masks.
No records for Michael Drayton in Westminsters burial register exist! Draytons Monument in Westminster doesn’t contain a grave/cave (similar to the empty tiny tomb of Shakspere in Stratford). Things about Drayton and the authorship , I believe, are more complicated .( see Argument 29 ua-cam.com/video/57LKIFQTkFo/v-deo.html)
To know or not to know about ‘William Shakespeare's..! Is William Shakespeare a pen name, and do we want to delve into the secrets and darker aspects of his past life? Who truly authored Shakespeare's works? Do we wish to uncover the mysteries and shadowy aspects of William Shakespeare's life, or whether he was indeed a pseudonym? Regardless of whether it was Edward De Vere or William Shakespeare himself, the renowned English poet, playwright, and actor remains one of the most significant literary figures in the history of the English language. He is often hailed as 'the world's pre-eminent dramatist.' Among his most celebrated creations are Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, The Tempest, Julius Caesar, King Lear, and A Midsummer Night's Dream, each leaving an enduring impact on global culture. Spanning both comedic and political theater, his contributions have enthralled audiences for over four centuries, and his influence continues to shape contemporary society.
While I like the piece, I disagree that William Shakspear actually stole de Vere's work. I think he was "hired" as a middle man to deliver the plays by de Vere and then Trentham after 1604 I further believe that he was the "domme man" in Trentham's will. I believe the Shake-spears name is put on the written plays initially not as author, but as the the provider of them and the "myth" evolved over time. The fact that no one in Stratford knew him as an author was simply because he wasn't and he was being paid to keep his mouth shut about them. He did a good job. Further, I think besmirching Jonson was not fair. I think he was doing what Susan de Vere et al wanted. Cover up the author short term but leave clues for the future. He did it very well and it is people like Looney and others like Alexander, who have meticulously brushed away the chaff to reveal the truth.
The pantograph, a drawing device used in refitting original shapes to another size, was invented by a Jesuit priest in 1603. Could Droeshout (Theodorus, god’s gift) have had strife in refitting because he wasn’t used to using the new-fangled pantograph?
Kent, Boyle and Pope are all wearing the same funny red hats. The same type of hat David Hume wears in his painting. Is this a Freemason thing? Was Hume a Freemason to? Know anything about the hats? I've learned SO much from you're videos Alexander. Thank you for making them. And please keep making more!
------------------------------------------------------------- Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The (2008) Benjamin Button: Along the way you bump into people who make a dent on your life. Some people get struck by lightning. Some are born to sit by a river. Some have an ear for music. Some are artists. Some swim the English Channel. Some know buttons. Some know Shakespeare. Some are mothers. And some people can dance. ---------------------------------------------------- ON BEN JONSON'S BUST. WITH THE BUTTONS ON THE WRONG SIDE. "O rare Ben Jonson! what a turn-coat grown? Thou ne'er wore such 'til thou wast clad in stone; When Time thy coat, thy only coat impairs, Thou'lt find a patron in an hundred years; Let not then this mistake disturb thy sprite, Another age shall set thy buttons right." ---------------------------------------------------- . King Lear (Folio) Act V, scene III . Lear. : And my poore Foole is hang'd: no, no, no life? . Why should a Dog, a Horse, a Rat haue life, . And thou no breath at all? Thou'lt come no more, . NEUER, nEUER, nEUER, nEUER, nEUER. . Pray you vndo this Button. Thanke you Sir, . Do you see this? Looke on her? Looke her lips, . Looke there, looke there. . _________ He dies. ----------------------------------------------------
Just after the 9-minute mark, Waugh describes a long wall on the north side that is perpendicular to the shorter wall on the south side abutting the grave. But of course north and south are opposite, not perpendicular. If either wall was north or south, the other must have been east or west. Who here knows enough about the abbey to say?
Published from the True OriginallCopies. I can’t help but see the initials PTOC and turn them into COPT. A Coptic Ankh looks like a head on a neck wearing a rabato viewed from the side. The rebato is level, so it is only seen as a line.
Poem page and Droeshout etching. To the reader. In Latin: Ad lectorem. Anagrams: adlectorem (an adlector is an enticed/promoter). DRECTEM MOLA = MY RIGHT MOLE. If the engraver had a strife (anag. Refits) in copying his etching from portrait, then the etching would have been printed IN REVERSE. Therefore the mole would have been on the sitter’s LEFT CHEEK.
Let's take it a step further shall we. Find Mr Waugh's Part 1 to this series online as a pdf. Notice the only link to Oxford in the entire article is the word "uncarved" in the Basse poem. The problem is, the correct word is "carved". There are more than 30 versions of this poem in existence. The vast majority have carved, but there are some obvious copying errors. One version has curved. One has sable. Only two, to the best of my knowledge, have "uncarved". But even these two version quote the line as "In this uncarved marble...", whereas Mr Waugh quotes it "Under this uncarved marble...". There's multiple problems here. First, it should be carved, not uncarved. Second, even the uncarved variants have the line beginning "in this", which at least scans as iambic pentameter. Mr Waugh has quoted a version of the poem with the wrong word, that doesn't scan, and here's the thing: it does not even exist! Mr Waugh has not supplied a citation for his version, and I challenge him to do so, as as far as I can see, it simply does not exist as he has reproduced it. His version omits the final couplet, which tends to negate the conclusion he wants to draw from the poem. So my challenge: provide the citation for this version of the Basse problem with (i) uncarved (ii) Under this marble...and (iii)omitting the final couplet. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected and apologise, but until then, I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that the poem doesn't even exist as Mr Waugh has quoted it, and I challenge him to provide the reference. This entire business of trying to bury Oxford in Westminster goes back to 1943. See Newsletter of the Shakespeare Fellowship June of that year, Vol 4 no 4. At least they quote the Basse poem correctly there, and they are not trying to smuggle the Earl under the Shakespeare Monument, just into the deVere family crypt in Westminster abbey. Which would at least make more sense than under an unmarked spot. And there have been other attempts over the years to make this work, but Mr Waugh has upped the ante, and bypassed the family crypt and gone for the Gold Prize, under the Shakespeare monument. But to get there, he has had to perform these contortions with the Basse poem, to make it apply to Oxford using the wrong uncarved variant, and ommitting the final couplet, which also rather spoils the effect. That's Part 1. Part II uses the geometry devised by Alan Green, again without acknowledgement, and then uses the ridiculous T=ox equation, which is flat out false, to make the whole secret treasure map fit. The whole thing is just a big chunk of fake history, and the fact that none of the Oxfordians are doing the due diligence to check any of this tells you everything you need to know about the intellectual rigour of the movement. It's all just a fantasy and this current episode of trying to get him under the Shak Monument is a shining example of the way the game is played. I actually gave a presentation on this whole business to the Francis Bacon society earlier this year, which was intended for youtube. However, the poor dears down at the FBS had a fit of the vapours and were so horrified by how devastating my argument was against this that they have decided to suppress the video. It is not even available for members to see. I must have hit a nerve. Why don't you write to them and ask to see it. If my arguments are so weak, then you can go ahead and write comments like this underneath. Oxford remains exactly where he was buried. Hackney Churchyard. The diary entry on which this entire wild good chase is predicated simply had it wrong. It is not reliable as a source, as it also claimed that he was a member of the Privy Council, which is not true. So the whole thing is just an exercise in wishful thinking and slightly dubious mishandling of the textual materials. Oxfordians, if there are any out there with integrity, should check out what I am saying, and either prove me wrong, or concede it.
My apologies for supposing you a Stratfordianist. I have enormous respect for the Baconians and welcome you and all others to the discussion threads of this channel. The Baconians are an honourable brotherhood to which Oxfordians are closely allied. 'My Cousin Bacon' as Oxford referred to him was, I believe, involved in the Shakespeare authorship mystery, but not as principle author. Incidentally one of the finest Baconians of the present age, Peter Dawkins, told me when I showed him these encryptions over lunch at his house in Warwickshire that it was the best evidence he had ever seen for Oxford and, strangely, picked on the very bit about which you are complaining - the Tau-Bull - as being the moment when he realised it had to be taken seriously! Among the many versions of the Basse poem which have 'uncarved' (as listed in Wells and Taylor, rather weakening your claims for a 'copying error' I think) the one reproduced in 'Shakespeare Allusion Book' is there described as 'a much finer reading' than the alternatives 'sacred' and 'carved'. 'Uncarved' and 'sacred' have the same number of syllables so scansion is not an issue. You say the issue of Oxford being buried in Westminster goes back to 1943. As I mentioned in my last post it is brought up by Oxford's first cousin, Percival Golding c. 1619: "He dyed at his house in Hackney in the monthe of June Anno 1604 and leith buried at Westminster.' Oxford was never buried in 'Hackney Churchyard' as you put it, but within the church. Evidence of his uncarved marble monument with 17 crucifiers and two erased shields survives in pictorial form. I think Oxford's first cousin was more likely to know where he is buried than you, no? I have acknowledged Alan Green's discovery of the geometry of the title-page many times in my work in print, in online presentations and in public speeches. He did not however discover the all important Chi Rho which points to de Vere and God as the author of the Sonnets, though I freely admit that I could not have found it without prior knowledge of his hidden circle - one of the greatest Shakespearean discoveries of modern times.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank you for your generous replies and the welcome. I come in peace, to rebut your argument, which I take as fair play, but of course in respect. Now, thank you for the Shakespeare Allusion book reference, but actually it does not reflect the version you have cited. It says: "In this uncarved marble," is an earlier, as it is unquestionably a much finer, reading than either " Under this cawed marble, " or " Under this sable marble,". But you don't have "In this uncarved marble", you have "Under this uncarved marble"....so again I ask, where have you obtained your version from please? While we await that information, I will say this: "In this uncarved marble" makes no sense. No one was ever buried "In" marble. So there is a problem with that version. And I'm afraid I do not agree with your syllable count. In poetry, uncarved is three syllables. I was going to say clearly, but stopped myself. :-) But look, by far the vast majority of the versions have "carved marble..." (I'm sorry, I don't know the exact numbers, but there are 35-40 versions extant? and you say 4 have uncarved? so that makes 31-36 versions which do not have uncarved....), plus the fact that it doesn't make sense as "In this uncarved marble", plus the fact, I repeat, that it doesn't scan...leads me to conclude that it is not the correct original reading. It was quicker to say "clearly" the first time, but there, I've spelled it out. But, please, let's begin with the version you have cited...if the version does not even exist, then the argument is moot. So please, may we have the reference please, or a concession that it does not exist as reproduced?
Dear Mr Miles: I thought the word in contention was 'uncarved'. 'Under', which I deem to be irrelevant to our discussion, I took from failing memory. 'In this uncarved marble is correct' but I cannot believe you wish to point-score over 'under' since 'uncarved' is what we are disputing . You say 'No one was ever buried "In" marble'. What? "who now lies entombed in this marble stone?". Who said that? Lodge I think in his Epitaph to Eurimone. 'In this marble buried lies...' 'Wise and clean Richard, second of that name lyes in this marble frame' (Heywood). That bit of your argument definitely needs a rethink. The full quotation from SAB edited by Munro, and adopted by him from Ingilby says "We believe that the Fennell version (adopted as our text), "In this uncarved marble," is an earlier, as it is unquestionably a much finer, reading than either "Under this carved marble" or "Under this sable marble" which last occurs in the Sloane copy.' So I think you will have to take up the issue of which is the finer, 'carved' or 'uncarved', with the ghosts of past Shakespearean scholars. All I can say with certainty is that 'uncarved' appears in multiple source copies, it is valid, it makes sense and it scans. Sorry to have confused you with 'under'.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 My point was that your version of the poem as quoted does not exist. I am glad to be vindicated. It also lacks the final couplet, which in my view tends to negate your intepretation of the poet's intent. The final couplet confirms that he believes Shakespeare should remain where he is buried. By leaving this couplet off, the casual reader, who doesn't take the trouble to look up the poem, is not aware that Basse actually argues for Shakespeare to remain buried where he is. In my view, your argument would be more robust if you had discussed the carved/uncarved variation, and if you had left the final couplet intact. As it stands, it looks like you have cherry picked and even altered (by omitting the final couplet) a version of the poem to suit your argument. That's my view. No one else has noticed that your version is not valid, so I point it out, and am glad that you have acknowledged my point.
You seem to have lost track of the massive 'IF' in the poem. In any case I am rather surprised you wish argue these points as Basse's epitaph fits the Baconian case just as snugly as it works for Oxford. Both Oxford and Bacon were lords, both buried in unmarked tombs. Basse is saying that if 'Shakespeare' cannot be moved to Westminster alongside Chaucer, Beaumont and Spenser then at least his tomb should be marked with his name, title, honours, achievements etc etc, so that he may be memorialised as 'Lord and not tenant' of his grave and will be an honour for others in future to be buried by him. One early version ends: 'That, unto Vs and others it may bee Honor, hereafter to be laid by thee.' Here I think the strange orthography of 'us' as 'Vs' subtly pleads for a Vere tomb along the lines you suggested in your earlier post. I cannot get exercised about your 'vindication' or otherwise concerning the word 'under' - de minimis non curat Alex
--------------------------------------------------------- *EVERYONE* can agree that the 1603 "Bad Quarto" was written about, for (& most probably by) Oxford himself. .................................. 1) CORAMBIS = William Cecil 2) LAERTES = Robert/Thomas Cecil 3) OPHELIA = Anne Cecil 4) HAMLET = Oxford .................................. But one has to really ask oneself: *WHO THE HECK* are Oxford's frenemies: *ROSSEnCRAFT* & *GUILDerSTONE* ? Clearly they are the *ROSICRUCIANS* & *FREEMASONS* who, *ALONE*, have had the means, motive & opportunity to successfully hide Edward de Vere's name for 400 years. Fortunately, however, *ROSICRUCIANS* & *FREEMASONS* simply love codes, ciphers, riddles & cryptograms. --------------------------------------------------------- Oxford needed *COSEN BACON* & Seriant *HARRIS* in order to both edit & poblish *HIS BOOKE* "HAMLET" --------------------------------------------------------- _____ *SEALD & DOONE* ............................................ ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/PERSONAL/011007.html . Cecil Papers 88/101 (bifolium, 232mm x 170mm), Oxford to Cecil; 7 October 1601 (W337;F593). . ...for I am aduised, that I may passe *MY BOOKE* from her Magestie, yf a warrant may be procured to my *COSEN BACON* and Seriant [=Sergeant] *HARRIS* to perfet [= *PERFECT* ] yt. Whiche beinge *DOONE* , I know to whome formallye to thanke, but reallye they shalbe, and are from me, and myne, *to be SEALED VP* in an *AETERNALL REMEMBRANCE* to yowre selfe. And thus *WISHINGE ALL HAPPINES* to yow, and sume fortunat meanes to me, wherby I myght recognise soo *DIEPE* merites, I take my leaue this 7th of October from my House at HAKNEY. 1601. . Yowre most assured and louinge Broother. (signed) Edward Oxenford (ital.; 4+7) . Addressed (O): To the ryghte honorable & my very good Broother Sir Robert Cecill on [=one] of her Magestyes pryvie Councel and principall Secretarie giue thes at the Coorte. [seal] . Endorsed: 1601 7 October: Erle of Oxenford to my Master. --------------------------------------------------------- __ Hamlet (1603: Bad Quarto 1) Act 1 Scene 4 ........................................................ Ham.: I MARY i'st and though I am Natiue here, . and to t[H]e m[A]ne[R] bo[R]ne, [I]t i[S] . a custome, more honourd in the breach, . Then in the obseruance. ............................................... . . . t o t . [H] e m . [A] n e . [R] b o . [R] n e, . [I] t i . [S] . [HARRIS] 3 --------------------------------------------------------- __ Hamlet (1603: Bad Quarto 1) Act 5 Scene 1 ......................................................... Hamlet: An excellent fellow by the Lord Horatio, . This *SEAUEN YEARES* haue I noted it: the toe of the pesant, . *COMES so neere the heele of the courtier* , . That hee gawles his kibe, I prethee tell mee one thing, . How long will a man lie in the ground before hee *ROTS*? . Clowne: I faith {SIR}, if hee be not rotten [B]efore . *HE BE* laide in, [A]s w{E} haue many pocky [C]or{S}es, . H(E) will last y[O]u, e{I}ght (Y)eares, *a TAN[N]ER* . {WILL}(L)ast you eight yeare(S) full out, or nine. ..................................................... . . . f a i t h {S I R} i f h e e b e n o . t (R) o t t e n [B] e f o r e*H E B E* . l (A) i d e i n [A] s w {E}h a u e m a . n (Y) p o c k y [C] o r {S}e s H (E)w i . l (L) l a s t y [O] u e {I}g h t (Y)e a . r (E) S A T A N [N] E R {W I L L}(L)a s . t (Y) o u e i g h t y e a r e (S)a f . u l l o u t o r n i n e. ........................................................ [{SIR}BACON] 17: Bacon knighted in 1603 (the year of Q1) (RAYLEY) 17 {WISE} -17: Grand Prior *ANDREW {WISE}* {WILL.}(SLYE) -17: cast for Every Man in His Humour (1598) ........................................................... Hamlet: And why A {TANNER}? . Clowne: Why his hide is so tanned with his trade, . That it will holde out water, that's a parlous . Deuourer of your dead body, a great soaker. -------------------------------------------------------------- . THE KNIGHTS OF SAINT JOHN IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND & IRELAND . www.saintjohn.org/priory.htm . -------------------------------------------------------- . 1597, Richard III (Q1 STC 22314): . THE TRAGEDY OF / King Richard the third. Containing, . His teacherous Plots againft his brother Clarence: . the pittiefull murther of his iunocent nephewes: . his tyrannicall vfurpation: with the whole courfe . of his detefted life, and moft deferued death. . As it hath beene lately Acted by the . Right honourable the Lord Chamber-laine his feruants. . . Printed by *VALENTINE Sims*, for *ANDREW {WISE}*, . __ dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the ________ Signe of the *ANGELl* 1597. ----------------------------------------------- ______ Hamlet (Q2, 1604) . King: Follow him at foote, . Tempt him with speede abord, . Delay it not, Ile haue him hence to . nig[H]t. Aw[A]y, fo[R] eue[R]y th[I]ng i[S] . *SEALD and DONE* ............................................... ______ Hamlet (Folio, 1623) . King: Follow him at foote, . Tempt him with speed aboord: . Delay it not, Ile haue him hence to . nig[H]t. Aw[A]y, fo[R] eue[R]y th[I]ng i[S] . *SEAL'D and DONE* ............................................... . . . n i g . [H]{t A w} . [A] y f o . [R] e u e . [R] y t h -. [I] n g i . [S] . . *SEAL'D and DONE* . [HARRIS] 4 ----------------------------------------------------- tinyurl.com/ycow7kej The contract for building _The Fortune Playhouse_ *SEALED and deliu'ed* by the saide *PETER* Streete in the p'esence of me *william [HARRIS]* Pub Scr And me frauncis Smyth appr to the said Scr / [endorsed:] *Peater Streat* ffor The Building of the ffortune --------------------------------------------------
Rabato (neckwear, geometry); Abarot, the Hebrew seventh heaven where the Seraphim live; Tabaro (Venetian dialect for cloaked); Tabora (the hidden Tabor light of Revelations and the light of the Book of Revelations). Lux COLL[ABORAT]UM. Collum means neck. The light is shining from the neck.
as a crack statistician and scientist, waugh can perform a simple test* that will add credence to any of his "findings": any time he finds a "secret message," he can measure the entropy of the text's letter doublets and triplets. if it has significantly lower entropy**, waugh has eliminated one way we might falsify his hypothesis***; if it doesn't, then we'll all get treated to another delightfully entertaining round of ad hoc reasoning. it's really win/win. * it's a test that'll take about 1/1000th of the time it takes him to find these little "secret messages" ** one could, of course, argue that oxford designed these messages so as to hide any reduced doublet entropy. but come on already. we're talking about the "farting earl" ***** as both an experimental scientist and a philosopher of science, waugh knows we never really prove our hypotheses but instead fail to falsify them (and, once we get tired of trying to falsify them, we accept them). waugh is in no way out of his depths here
Something like this, perhaps? ----------------------------------------------------------- www.etymonline.com/word/dissolve#etymonline_v_11506 {DISSOLVE} (v.) late 14c. dissolven, "to break up, disunite, separate into parts" from dis- "apart" (see dis-) + sol[VERE] "to loosen, untie," ----------------------------------------------------------- First Folio (1623) TO THE MEMORIE of the deceased Authour *MAISTER W. SHAKESPEARE* SHake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes giue The world thy Workes: thy Workes, by which, out-liue Thy Tombe, thy name must: when that stone is rent, And Time {DISSOLVES thy STRATFORD MONIMENT}, Here we aliue shall view thee still. This Booke, When Brasse and Marble fade, shall make thee looke Fresh to all Ages: when Posteritie Shall loath what's new, thinke all is prodegie That is not *S[H]AKE-SPEARES; eu'ry Line, each Verse* Here shall revi*VE, RE*[D]eeme thee from thy Herse. Nor Fire, nor cankring Age, as N[A]so said, Of his, Thy wit-fraught Booke shall once invade. Nor shall I e're beleeve, or thinke thee dead. (Though mist) [U]ntill our bankrout Stage be sped (Impossible) with som[E] new straine t' out-do Passions of Iuliet, and her Romeo; O[R] till I heare a Scene more nobly take, Then when thy half=[S]word parlying Romans spake. Till these, till any of thy (v)olumes rest Shall with more fire, more feeling be expr{E}st, Be sure, our Shake=speare, thou canst nEVER DYE, But cr{O}wn'd with Lawrell, liue eternally. L. Digges. ................................................. . . . whenPosterit ieSh a lllo athwha tsnewthinkeallisp . rodegieThatis *notS [H] AKES PEARES euryLineeachVerse* . Hereshallreui *VERE*[D] eeme theefr omthyHerseNorFire . norcankringAg easN [A] sosa idOfhi sthywitfraughtBoo . keshalloncein uade [N] orsh allIer ebeleeueorthinket . heedeadThough mist [U] ntil lourba nkroutStagebesped . Impossiblewit hsom [E] news traine toutdoPassionsofI . ulietandherRo meoO [R] till Iheare aScenemorenoblyta . keThenwhenthy half [S] WORD parlyi ngRomansspakeTill . thesetillanyo fthy (v) olum esrest Shallwithmorefire . morefeelingbe expr {E} stBe sureou rShakespearethouc . anstnEVERDYEB utcr {O} wndw ithLaw rellliueeternally. . [H.DANUERS] 45 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 192,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- . "Moore C W The Freemasons Monthly Magazine Vol IV 1845" . GRAND MASTERS, OR PATRONS, OF THE FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS IN ENGLAND, 1618.[W]illiam [H]erbert , Earl of Pembroke, was chosen Grand Master. He appointed Inigo Jones his Deputy. 1630-1-2. [H]enry [DANVERS] , Earl of Danby. ....................................................................... wikivisually.com/wiki/Henry_Danvers%2C_1st_Earl_of_Danby ----------------------------------------------------------------------
@@arthurneuendorffer4914 actually, no, nothing like that. i was thinking more about a reduction in entropy in a text's bi- and trigrams. for example, see above where i mention testing for a reduction in entropy in a text's bi- and trigrams. look for the words 'test' and 'entropy' and you'll have found it! you know, kinda standard non-goofy analysis. HTH
@@ChrisHanks_ColonelOfTruth Alexander's main argument doesn't depend on the validity of the text's bi- and trigrams; it depends on the overwhelming evidence that Freemason's tried to sell the public on the idea that court plays chock full of inside jokes and bisexual/homosexual references could be accepted as a national treasure. And at least two contemporary Freemason Grand Masters are referenced in the introductory FF material: Master [W]illiam [H]erbert (explicitly) and [H]enry [DANVERS] (with a low entropy cipher).
In the will of Augustine Philips, they are all named as fellows. They are all named as members of The King's Men in several documents of the era. Hemminges was one of the witnesses for Shakespeare's purchase of the Blackfriars gatehouse on 1613. Richard Burbage, Will Kempe and William Shakespeare were named together performing plays at court. Shakespeare, Burbage, Hemminges and Condell are named in the cast lists of two Ben Jonson plays. Shakespeare and Burbage appear together being paid for an impresa created for the Earl of Rutland. Lawsuits involving Condell and Hemminges make Shakespeare. The line about leaning money to Burbage, Hemminges and Condell to buy memorial rings is also found in the official probate copy made several weeks later. If it was added, it was added before then.
Fascinating watching all the Oxfordians falling over themselves to uncritically accept this fake history. Nobody wants to dispute with Mr Waugh! Look, the graphics are great and it's all very learned, but there are multiple fatal flaws in the argument which are not so difficult to discern. In Mr Waugh's Part 1, he fundamentally mishandles the text of the William Basse poem, resting his entire argument on the word 'uncarved' which is clearly a copying error. In Part 2, he bases his argument on a very silly notion that the letter T derives from the Ox. It does not. The letter A derives from the Ox. Not T. Look it up. He does this by mispresenting a bonkers Masonic book from the 1800s, Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy by Robert H Brown (though he fails to credit the work). Brown is the only person in history to claim T derives from the Ox, and as he did so in 1882, it could hardly have formed the basis for the suggested Sonnets encoding, let alone a decoding. Take away these two supports, and the entire thesis collapses. For bonus points, the Sonnets, which Waugh claims secretly record Oxford's burial in Westminster Abbey, were published 1609 but according to Oxford's wife's will he was still buried at Hackney Churchyard in 1612. So the whole thing is a hot mess, but with admittedly very nice graphics. As I say, what is most interesting to me is how no Oxfordians are scrutinising these arguments with a sufficiently fine-toothed comb, but instead just accepting it at face value as true because they want it to be. When things get to this stage, it's the sure mark of a cult. The idea that Oxford, the highest ranking noblemen in the land, was dug up in the middle of the night and secretly buried in an unmarked grave, against the dying wishes of his wife, and when there was already a deVere famliy crypt in Wesminster Abbey is completely unthinkable. But go for it Oxfordians, if you wish hard enough, maybe you can make it come true.
Simon Miles wrote: Alexander is arguing that Oxford was dug up and buried in *a secretly marked grave* in Westminster Abbey irrespective of the wishes of his wife. No doubt it was a Faustian bargain in which Masons assured Oxford that his works would be immortalized (...a lot better deal than Hackney Church offered).
When Stratfordianists use the word ‘clearly’ we know they are building their houses on quicksand. Simon Miles writes that the word ‘uncarved’ in Basse’s poem about Shakespeare’s tomb is ‘clearly a copying error’. The poem states that Shakespeare is unworthy of the place where he is buried, so to be under an ‘uncarved’ marble reinforces the exact point that the poet is making. The word ‘uncarved’ appears in at least four source versions of this poem according to Wells and Taylor (1987). Oxford was first buried in an 'uncarved marble tomb’ at Hackney in 1604 but Stratford-Shakspere was not buried under any ‘uncarved marble’ at any time, which explains Mr Miles need to describe ‘uncarved’ as ‘clearly a copying error’. Oxford was reinterred from Hackney to Westminster sometime after 1612 and before March 1625 as we are informed by his first cousin Percival Golding. It is an error to assume that if x is used to symbolise y then nothing else can be used to symbolise y. The common root of Tau and Tauros or Taurus is self evident. Indeed the words ‘Tau’ and ‘Taurus’ were interchangeable long before the ‘bonkers’ 1882 source discovered by Mr Miles of which I am unaware (see for instance Thomas Oliver ‘A New Handling of the Planisphere, 1601). In Hebrew aleph and tav (the first and last letters of the alphabet) represent the first and the last, and both were anciently used to represent the ox. The Atbash cipher interchanges these two letters. In the sonnets cipher not only do we see the T or Tau representing ‘the first and the last’ but the encrypter goes out of his way to illustrate the significant ‘fourth T’ of the title-page as an ox in clear contrast to the T next to it which represents God - ‘clearly’ another ‘bonkers’ 19th Century idea according to Mr Miles. Mr Miles is also in error when he claims there to be a ‘de Vere family crypt’ at Westminster Abbey. Two Vere brothers (cousins) are buried in one chapel, in another lies the 18th Earl of Oxford and the wife of Aubrey, 20th Earl of Oxford, in the North aisle lies Hugh de Vere, 4th Earl of Oxford, elsewhere the countess of the 17th Earl of Oxford. There is no ‘Vere family crypt’ nor ever has been at Westminster Abbey. Oxford was moved to the South transept not to be near his relations but to lie in geometric relation to Chaucer and Spenser. Art was more important to Oxford than nobility (see Sonnet 125). Oxford was not the 'highest ranking nobleman in the land' - I do not 'rest my entire argument' on anything - 'the middle of the night' is Mr Miles's fanciful conceit not mine etc etc.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank you for your courteous reply, which I appreciate. This though: "the ‘bonkers’ 1882 source discovered by Mr Miles of which I am unaware": I am not sure how you can be unaware of the Robert H Brown source, as you reproduce a diagram from his book in your 2017 SAT lecture! If I may be so bold, you actually fudge his claim in there that the ox-heiroglyph was the ancient egyptian for tau. Brown actually does not make that claim, he merely claims that this glyph was an ancient Egyptian hieroglyph, but he does not actually come out and claim that it stood for the tau. I would actually challenge whether it is even an egyptian hieroglyph: I have searched Gardiner and cannot find it, so I would ask please for, first, a citation that shows it actually was an egyptian glyph, and secondly, that it stood for tau, or anything like that. The common root of tau and taurus may or may not be self-evident, but as far as I can see it was not used in ancient Egypt that way, and that is the claim made in the 2017 talk to establish the identity. If the equivalance of ox and T can be demonstrated reliably from some other source, then great, but it is not established from the references supplied in the 2017 talk. As for the Basse: I will await the citation for the version you have used before responding. And a small correction if I may: I'm no Stratfordian. :-) I fly the flag for Bacon.
As for the DeVere family vault, I am afraid I don't pay close enough attention to always get the nuance correct, but in this case, I was quoting the opinion of Phyllis Carrington, writing in the newsletter of the Shakespeare Fellowship, June 1943, who writes: "It would seem therefore, that Sir Francis Vere's tomb was regarded as a family vault". She thought that was where he might have been re-interred to. Other's since then have also made the suggestion. To me, it's all besides the point, as I see no evidence he was ever moved. But clearly, other Oxfordians have taken it that there was in effect a DeVere family crypt in Westminster.
I have been fascinated by all your lectures and view them over & over.
Thank you for your dedication to this cause.
Great scholarly work. Most compelling and convincing. And beautifully presented.
Thank you so much for posting! I look forward to each new installment in this, the greatest of all British mysteries! Bravo, maestro.
Again, a most compelling video Alexander
This was fascinating. Alexander Waugh has an extraordinary eye for following hidden (and not coincidental) clues, and then weaves a plausible connection between them. Thanks so much!
This is all so fascinating, thank you Alexander for all of your hard work! The truth must be revealed!
all of your presentations are wonderful. thank you for sharing this work. you've elucidated some complicated and cryptic info with clarity and ease that's a delight to take in.
The people who did this do not make mistakes when it comes to things carved in stone.
And they also had the funds to do it again if they had.
Are we talking Masons or Stone masons? Or both?
This was uploaded day 3 of 6 month , in year 9. Nice, subtle. Great video !
Beautifully done Alexander, a fascinating dive into the various mysteries surrounding the monument. I'm hoping you tell us more about de Vere's masonic role, etc.... can't wait to see if you can squeeze some blood out of a stone ... mason!
It's so much fun watching these again. I am such a lousy student, I have most of what you've told me mixed up or forgotten.
I didn't realise Jonson is perched up there on or after the wall. Drayton is slap bang on the centre on that diagram.
I'm more certain than ever that their eyes, so the bridge of their noses, will be at perfect triangles to within half an inch of the very centre of the monument via the Abbey floor. I also believe Spencer will be exactly deep enough for your 30-60-90 to be also astonishingly accurate.
That wall looks like you and me had built it, I don't know if that's subterfuge. Everything else has been put there to honour not just De Vere but also Dee and Hiram Abiff and draw a line from Jabal. They will have tried their very hardest to get their masonry absolutely bang on.
God bless you for all your work! De Vere vivit. ⭐️
Alexander thank you, so fascinating. I do love it when you give us a long one 😉
gross
🌭
Thank you for your work, sir.
Job done Alexander! I guess you could say 'the prosecution rests!'.
Beautiful and convincing video!
Truly, thoroughly enjoying your scholarly work. Absent dramatic addition and titillating rumour of telly "documentaries", the research stands quite sufficiently on it's own.
The process of occultation, the numerical indicators, brilliance worked to create, and overtly placed knowledge makes one, truly drives one, to think about the reason behind the scherrade. More specifically, to what purpose or hide what associations? Even an adopted heir wouldn't necessitate such workings.
Sincerest appreciation for your diligence.
Mahe Ohna ✌️ Favour to you and ALL
As always, brilliant!
Draitons monument looks like it had 6-2-4 encoded in it as well. Though, maybe I'm just excited and seeing things. From the bottom up, 6 lines end in "E", 2 lines end in "T", and 4 lines end in "E" (if you count 1631 as sixteen thirty onE).
Note the line indentations on Drayton's epitaph-6 short, 2 long, and 4 medium
Of course you may already know that the Drayton family is essentially the de Vere family who changed their name after one of their estates Drayton House. So it makes perfect sense that their graves align in the way you are suggesting. In turn it also fits your theory even better that they are actually of the same family. Interesting stuff. Thank you.
An old family which came from Hastings, change name in a new acquired estate??
A very interesting presentation. Thanks very much. There are a few odd things about Drayton's monument, aren't there? Erratic capitalisation of verbs; a capital L in the middle of the first "GLorye"; "cannot" rendered "canõt" -- i.e., "canont" -- and so on. I'm with you on such things being deliberate and careful. Any idea on possible senses of these?
Listening to Alexander, and have a better understanding.
Regarding the inscription on Ben Jonson's monument, I see "O R A R E" as orare from the Latin oraculum which means to speak or to pray. The inscription then suggests "Speak" Ben Jonson or "Pray Thee" Ben Jonson. Just a curious thought.
Thank you lospark68. There is reference to this topic in a presentation called 'George Vertue Knew' and an interesting discussion about it followed in the comments.
Thank you both, I just made a comment about Ben Johnson's Monument. It's crying out to be decoded... but I'm not clever enough to do it. Also it appears to me that the three masks st the bottom is a face and two masks.
Your dedication to this bit is impressive, rivaled only by Andy Kaufman doing ‘Alex Jones’!
I think you are the best don’t ever stop
Amazing presentation, Alexander. I have followed your discoveries from the very first video that you uploaded. With each video you are building a bigger and bolder case until, eventually, the truth can no longer be ignored.
My only question is: why would 18th century freemasons such as Burlington and Pope go to such trouble to conceal Edward de Vere's identity by upholding a myth that at the time the monument was commissioned no longer served anyone?
And what could possibly be gained by modern freemasons keeping their knowledge of the true identity of the author and his burial site a secret?
Secrets are usually kept for a reason. Why is it that in 2019 anyone would make a point of hiding the name of a poet who died 400 years ago?
Stratford-upon-Avon will try to maintain the status quo for very obvious reasons... but the truth will out and the question is: who would have a vested interest in keeping the truth buried and why? 🤔
Thank you CirceEnchants. I am not a Freemason and cannot read their minds but as far as I understand them they keep secrets and it is not their policy ever to betray them. If people like me come along and unveil these secrets their attitude is to say that ‘God has decided that our secret should no longer be a secret’ but it is never the Freemason’s task to release a secret to the public that he has learned under oath in his Lodge. The Royal Arch, it seems, wished to honour Oxford (their former Grand Master I suspect) without betraying his identity as 'Shakespeare' and without stating an outright lie (i.e. that the author was Stratford-Shakspere). I have no doubt that this is what Oxford himself would have ordained. It was he after all who decided to erase his own identity (a very Masonic thing to do) and he who would expect the brotherhood of Masons to respect his wishes even after his death. So they honoured him in 1623 and again 1740 as ‘Shakespeare’ - in strange ambiguous ways, some of which I highlight in this presentation.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Ok Alexander we need you to become the Grandmaster and release the secret...
The mythos of "the Divine William" of Stratford still serves to hide the words and deeds of actual personages that de Vere recorded in sometimes excruciating detail in the plays and poems. And who would these persons be? Only the likes of Elizabeth "the Virgin Queen" Tudor (please!) herself, William and Robert Cecil, in fact practically anyone who was anyone during the entirety of the age. Were the realisation to be made, the history of the age would have to be literally, completely re-written, and even now there would be political and social shockwaves from some of the realisations. Not least would be the revelation that Will Shaxper wasn't a prototypical "working class hero", and that the debt of acknowledgement and respect owed for the works of Shakespeare is actually due one of the quintessentially high-born and privileged, of the kind we've largely been taught to dismiss as inconsequential to learning and progress, if not to outright despise.
@@EliteRock😅
So with all these 3s, Could it be that "Freemason" is actually concealing "Threemason"?
Fascinating and beautifully done. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Waugh and others.
It rings true. “Uncarved” sounds right, makes sense, and is much more poetic.
Simon Miles seems controlling, and I feel, is kind of insulting in his use of the word “cult.”Furthermore, Mr. Waugh’s understanding of the T, Taurus, alpha and omega/Hebrew, etc. also rings true.
I hope it is not too cultish of me, but the first portrait I saw of de Vere, “Oxford”
felt like Yes, there he is! There is a subtle mind. A man in full.
Edward (6) de (2) Vere (4)
Edward Oxenford ( signature ) 16.
Is there an answer to why?
Has anyone done a ground scan in WA?
Did de ver publish anything in his own name?
I'm fascinated by your (and Alan Green plus others) research into this - have linked your channel in a recent vid I made (and took a v short screengrab animation of part of Alan's findings that you (I presume) made - really hope you ok with that..if not let me know and I'll edit out - I should have asked first of course - apologies). I'm keen to understand this topic more - I hope to be making more vids in future - may I ask you if you would mind if I on occasion used small clips from your uploads ?- of course I would cite you / link to your channel etc if I did - it's just in the interests of bringing this to more peoples attention. Totally understand if you'd prefer I didn't.
And lastly - I wondered if you'd considered the names Rosencrantz and Guildernstern - I'm sure you have - I thought the 'rose wreath' could be a nod to the persecuted Rosicrucians (Kranz is also an old German name with some perhaps interesting connection?) - the gold star of course must have great symbolism.
I'll link my vid - it's just an 'intro/teaser' vid to hopefully get people interested:
ua-cam.com/video/11z8qw_45iA/v-deo.html
Please take and use as much or as little as you want, with or without accreditation. I am delighted by your interest, AW
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thanks very much indeed - all best, Rob
It’s interesting the ratio of 6-2-4. Maybe it’s been mentioned before but Edward died June 24, 1604. June is the 6th month, followed by the 2-4 of his death date. 6-2-4.
In 1604, the new year began on March 25. This practice held until 1752.
@@jeffmeade8643 very interesting... I knew there was some switch up with the calendar in 1582 where they dropped 10 days and switch to the Gregorian calendar, but I didn't realize that Queen Elizabeth I refused to go along with it. I don't think it changes the fact that June was considered the 6-month.
On the slide showing Burlington, Kent, and Pope, I notice they're all wearing red "bonnets" and it made me think of De Vere's description of Adonis in Titian's portrait in his private studio. You mention that De Vere was a Freemason. Is there significance to this?
Red bonnets? Probably just Trump supporters ... ;-) ... sorry, couldn't resist.
Phrygian caps
Totally .
I was going to state this.
De Vere was reinterred in a year whose digits add to 17: 1 + 6 + 1 + 9 = 17. Clver chaps, those Jacobeans and Elizabethans.
Well it would be if it ever happened. If you start with 17 you can find a date to fit. There is no evidence that he was buried or "reinterred" in the Abbey at all. The argument that reinternments were never recorded is not good evidence.
@@colinallan1962 Alexander Waugh found an unpublished manuscript written by de Vere's nephew Percival Golding circa 1623 which says explicitly that his uncle was buried in Westminster. Alexander has a video series Where is He Really Buried and I would recommend viewing them from the first to the last. The Golding reference comes at the end of the series where Alexander talks of the Freemasons (yes, those people) who knew where he was buried. They placed an allegorical statue above his resting place which used to be within a small chapel inside of Westminster known as the Chapel of St. Blaise, who just happened to be a saint who blesses throats. So there you have something to go by.
@@ronroffel1462 There are 2 Veres buried in Westminster in 1609 neither of them Oxford.The 18th Earl of Oxford was buried nearby in 1625. No evidence of the 17th Earl being buried there and no reason to disguise/omit evidence of his internment. The 17th's burial is recorded as Hackney. His widow's will in November 1612 asks that she be buried alongside him in Hackney churchyard. She died in December. Golding may well have believed that like other members of the family Oxford was in Westminster. He was writing some time after 1619. Clearly the widow was in on this ? She knew her husband was buried in WA.? This was a secret.? Oh no, that can’t be right because Golding is broadcasting it and Waugh is relying on it. In my experience WILLS are normally the most reliable documents being made in fear of God. In 1740 the statue of Shakespeare in WA says that he is buried in Stratford. In other words the identity of the real writer must ALWAYS be concealed. Why? Was Venus and Adonis too bawdy to be associated with Oxford ? If there was a fear that he had upset rulers by his works, that time had long since passed. Enoch Powell complained that Shakespeare could not be Shakespeare because he had not left “ his most valuable possession- his manuscripts- “ in his will. As I understand it Oxford left neither will nor manuscripts. Perhaps they too have been destroyed to keep a secret.
@@colinallan1962 Where is de Vere's will, then? It has disappeared along with many letters and other documents which Robert Cecil most likely either squirreled away or destroyed. If you want to know why Oxford concealed his name and why his relatives didn't want to reveal his writing activities, I would suggest reading up on several things such as the following: the stigma of printing fiction, poetry, and drama (not theology, military history, law or other non-fiction by the way) by aristocrats, censorship in Elizabethan and Jacobean England (there were at the most 26 printers allowed to operate in England during Queen Elizabeth's time and each one had a censor attached to it), the lowly status of actors and the ill-repute public playhouses had (actors were considered just above vagabonds my many people in society and playhouses were the hangouts of petty criminals and places where adulterers would make trysts), and how de Vere's family and descendants were in positions to put pressure on writers and nobles to keep quiet without needing to lift a finger, and other topics of history which English literature students are so fond of ignoring when it comes to the SAQ. Put together, the history of the period explains why de Vere concealed his writing activities. Read up on his life story (Nina Green has a brilliant biography based on the documentary evidence at her site oxfordshakespeare.com) or if you are open-minded enough, go to the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship website to see what Stratfordians have been ignoring for around 100 years. Unless, of course, you fear knowing more than you do now about what Alexander and Oxfordians are talking about.
It was de Vere's family and descendants, not King James who were putting pressure on writers to keep secret. They had eyes and ears everywhere. Imagine trying to reveal the dirt on Kim Jong Un while living in North Korea and you will get a good idea what sort of situation writers at the time faced. The fact that we have no surviving will by him means little as his widow would have taken his manuscripts; they would not have been left to his daughters or son while she was still alive. As I mentioned above, Robert Cecil took control over documents about de Vere and how history would perceive his brother-in-law; he did it through patronage of books like Thomas Miles' A Catalogue of Honour published in 1610 in which de Vere's accomplishments were neglected.
Here is a fact for you to digest: a few weeks after the First Folio was published in November 1623, Ben Jonson's study burned down (it was December 23rd to be exact). Jonson was a primary editor of the plays (not the actors named in the epistle who were not known as writers or editors) and he lost years' worth of work and if the surviving manuscripts were still in his study, then that meant they were destroyed in the fire. Jonson wrote Execrations Upon Vulcan a long poem published after his death which hints that he knew who ordered the fire, but could do nothing about it.
And yes, there is mystery surrounding his death (read the 2004 paper by Christopher Paul in the Oxfordian for more on the story, if you dare), but the argument against Shakspere the grain merchant is mounting and the only way supporters can defend the centuries-long myth is by nit-picking and ignoring contradictory evidence. That is hardly good scholarship or being open-minded.
@@ronroffel1462 Thank you very much for your closely argued and cogent response
Here is your starter for 10.
Oxford was a well known playwright in his lifetime. He also had love poetry published . ( According to that fount of wisdom Wikipedia, the first to do so!). He had an intimate involvement with the theatre and theatre players . To adopt a Waughism ; everybody knew. Of all the people to choose as worried by the stigma of being a playwright you could not have chosen a more unlikely candidate. Most importantly he was as you know " best for comedie. "
Comedy was bawdy at this time. Very Fedeau, innuendo and scatalogical. For somebody who didn't want to lower himself in public esteem he had obviously lost the plot.
His plays were performed at court . One assumes the aristos could read and write. The Quartos were published for those who could do the same.
Every one of AW's " knew " is opaque. However there must have been somebody who read Shakespeare and said " but this is Oxford's play, I saw it last year.!!" Sadly there is no young boy to expose the Emperor's new clothes.
I could go on but this is only a starter.
Isn't the Birthplace Trust appalling. Full marks to AW.
I am glad you brought up Ben Johnson.
It is quite clear to me that Everyman in and out of his humour was written by De Vere.
EVER ( Vere ) Y ( the ). Which is revealed as VERE, THE MAN in and out of his humour.
The bust in the church of Shakespeare is also appalling. It is clearly a later reinterpretation. ( There is evidence from the civil war of restoration) My personal view is that this shows John Shakespeare. Will always wanted to have his father honoured and the coat of arns was as much for his father as himself.
Love your vids 🧠
This is mind blowing
Re the double equestrian etching. The Latin word mola means millstone. The mullet in the De Vere crest comes from the Latin word mola. The two Henries are wearing millstone ruffs. The revolving star in the stirrup is a molette, which shares the same etymology. That is three references to MOLA (four if your count the two millstone ruffs). Is this a TTT moment? Is the second millstone ruff a quaternary hidden in a Trinity? :-)
I'm a bit confused. How can the dedication to the sonnets, which was published in 1609, point to the location of De Vere's final burial place if he was not re-interred there until 1619?
Thank you ZZ, you will find the answer to all this at the De Vere Society 'Hidden Truths in Written and Pictorial Notes - First Shot at a New Chronology', DVSN Vol. 24. No. 2 (April 2017), pp. 42-44.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank you for taking the time to reply! I will definitely follow up and read that.
De Vere's widow wrote her will in November 1612 asking to be buried alongside her husband - specifically in Hackney churchyard. She died in December 1612.
@@colinallan1962 Not in the churchyard. Nelson made that mistake. Oxford was buried within the chancel at Hackney. All this is covered in the above mentioned article. The reinterment from Hackney to Westminster took place I believe c. 1619, certainly within the reign of James I according to Oxford's learned cousin Percival Golding.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I didn't know you had evidence that he was buried in the Chancel.I understood his grave was unknown, his widow having asked for a monument to them both in her will in 1612 but none had been erected. This would seem to be a very important piece of evidence. To dig De Vere up from the chancel would have required a dispensation and if you have found a record of the chancel burial there ought to be records of the exhumation ?
Also the entry of De Vere's burial should surely have mentioned that he was put in the chancel - a prominent position -and not simply buried as records show and why didn't his widow not add the words "in the chancel" when she made the request to be buried near him ?
A burial in the chancel at that time would surely have indicated a tomb. As we know there was no monument to him by 1612; are we to assume he was simply under a slab?
Also as I understand it Percival Golding said nothing more than he was buried in Westminster. On the face of it he's just got it wrong. Other members of the family were buried there and doubtless he thought there was a family vault there because there was nothing in Hackney, the lack of monument having propelled De Vere and wife to obscurity.
I may have missed it but I have not come across any evidence of either the disinterment or reinterment.
Lastly, have you come across the resting place of his widow ? Do we know where she was actually buried because if we do, then De Vere should be close by. Was she buried in the chancel ? If she got her wish to be buried near him surely that would be the case. I take it that there are records of her burial. I bet there’s no mention of the chancel. Why didn’t she accompany him to Westminster. Seems somewhat misogynistic not to take her as well. She was clearly fond of him and didn’t want to be separated in death.
Wow, you are something else
My inclination is that Royal Arch refers to the preservation of the actual Tudor line; which includes Henry Wriothsely as Edward de Vere's bastard with Queen Elizabeth and then Wriothsely's child with Penelope Rich; raised as Henry de Vere by Oxford, so he could legitimately carry-on as the 18th Earl of Oxford. Henry de Vere appears to have been the legitimate heir to the Tudor Monarchy.
Thank you for filing in l in a few gaps that were lost to me long ago. There was a time when mans worth was equated to that of gold/silver or brass, some would say that was the age of enlightenment... Perhaps they missed the most rarest and worthy and noble elements of Humanity.
Is July 31st mentioned in this video?
Ben Johnsons Monument is making me crazy! "O RARE BEN : JOHNSON" just shouts out to be an anagram of something... but I'm not clever enough to work it out. The three masks underneath look like a face and two masks.
Another superb video, Mr Waugh. The '1740'/ 4 x T symbolism; Pope et al as Masons; the truth re the AQ hidden in plain sight. Stunning.
No records for Michael Drayton in Westminsters burial register exist! Draytons Monument in Westminster doesn’t contain a grave/cave (similar to the empty tiny tomb of Shakspere in Stratford). Things about Drayton and the authorship , I believe, are more complicated .( see Argument 29 ua-cam.com/video/57LKIFQTkFo/v-deo.html)
To know or not to know about ‘William Shakespeare's..! Is William Shakespeare a pen name, and do we want to delve into the secrets and darker aspects of his past life?
Who truly authored Shakespeare's works? Do we wish to uncover the mysteries and shadowy aspects of William Shakespeare's life, or whether he was indeed a pseudonym?
Regardless of whether it was Edward De Vere or William Shakespeare himself, the renowned English poet, playwright, and actor remains one of the most significant literary figures in the history of the English language. He is often hailed as 'the world's pre-eminent dramatist.' Among his most celebrated creations are Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, The Tempest, Julius Caesar, King Lear, and A Midsummer Night's Dream, each leaving an enduring impact on global culture. Spanning both comedic and political theater, his contributions have enthralled audiences for over four centuries, and his influence continues to shape contemporary society.
BC Freemasonry website : "the tau being the nineteenth letter in the Greek Alphabet" Hmm. The deeper we dig, the more we will find!
While I like the piece, I disagree that William Shakspear actually stole de Vere's work. I think he was "hired" as a middle man to deliver the plays by de Vere and then Trentham after 1604 I further believe that he was the "domme man" in Trentham's will. I believe the Shake-spears name is put on the written plays initially not as author, but as the the provider of them and the "myth" evolved over time. The fact that no one in Stratford knew him as an author was simply because he wasn't and he was being paid to keep his mouth shut about them. He did a good job.
Further, I think besmirching Jonson was not fair. I think he was doing what Susan de Vere et al wanted. Cover up the author short term but leave clues for the future. He did it very well and it is people like Looney and others like Alexander, who have meticulously brushed away the chaff to reveal the truth.
The pantograph, a drawing device used in refitting original shapes to another size, was invented by a Jesuit priest in 1603. Could Droeshout (Theodorus, god’s gift) have had strife in refitting because he wasn’t used to using the new-fangled pantograph?
Kent, Boyle and Pope are all wearing the same funny red hats. The same type of hat David Hume wears in his painting. Is this a Freemason thing? Was Hume a Freemason to? Know anything about the hats?
I've learned SO much from you're videos Alexander. Thank you for making them. And please keep making more!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_the_Desert
-------------------------------------------------------------
Curious Case of Benjamin Button,
The (2008) Benjamin Button:
Along the way you bump into people who make a dent on your life.
Some people get struck by lightning. Some are born to sit by a river.
Some have an ear for music. Some are artists.
Some swim the English Channel.
Some know buttons. Some know Shakespeare.
Some are mothers. And some people can dance.
----------------------------------------------------
ON BEN JONSON'S BUST.
WITH THE BUTTONS ON THE WRONG SIDE.
"O rare Ben Jonson! what a turn-coat grown?
Thou ne'er wore such 'til thou wast clad in stone;
When Time thy coat, thy only coat impairs,
Thou'lt find a patron in an hundred years;
Let not then this mistake disturb thy sprite,
Another age shall set thy buttons right."
----------------------------------------------------
. King Lear (Folio) Act V, scene III
.
Lear. : And my poore Foole is hang'd: no, no, no life?
. Why should a Dog, a Horse, a Rat haue life,
. And thou no breath at all? Thou'lt come no more,
. NEUER, nEUER, nEUER, nEUER, nEUER.
. Pray you vndo this Button. Thanke you Sir,
. Do you see this? Looke on her? Looke her lips,
. Looke there, looke there.
.
_________ He dies.
----------------------------------------------------
Just after the 9-minute mark, Waugh describes a long wall on the north side that is perpendicular to the shorter wall on the south side abutting the grave. But of course north and south are opposite, not perpendicular. If either wall was north or south, the other must have been east or west. Who here knows enough about the abbey to say?
Could the sarcophagi be representations of the Ark of the Covenant?
Published from the True OriginallCopies. I can’t help but see the initials PTOC and turn them into COPT. A Coptic Ankh looks like a head on a neck wearing a rabato viewed from the side. The rebato is level, so it is only seen as a line.
If you go to so much trouble to hide something, why would you also go to so much trouble to reveal your secret?
The truth (to their minds) is neither ‘hidden’ nor ‘revealed’ it is quite simply ‘preserved’.
LOL. Waugh is more of a numerologist than a scholar.
Why all this secrecy? Is that some sort of game?
Because of the enormous scandal. See the videos from the beginning.
@@tobias9859 yes, amazing when it was common knowledge that Oxford wrote plays. Best for comedy was I think the contemporary quote.
Poem page and Droeshout etching. To the reader. In Latin: Ad lectorem. Anagrams: adlectorem (an adlector is an enticed/promoter). DRECTEM MOLA = MY RIGHT MOLE. If the engraver had a strife (anag. Refits) in copying his etching from portrait, then the etching would have been printed IN REVERSE. Therefore the mole would have been on the sitter’s LEFT CHEEK.
Let's take it a step further shall we. Find Mr Waugh's Part 1 to this series online as a pdf. Notice the only link to Oxford in the entire article is the word "uncarved" in the Basse poem. The problem is, the correct word is "carved". There are more than 30 versions of this poem in existence. The vast majority have carved, but there are some obvious copying errors. One version has curved. One has sable. Only two, to the best of my knowledge, have "uncarved". But even these two version quote the line as "In this uncarved marble...", whereas Mr Waugh quotes it "Under this uncarved marble...". There's multiple problems here. First, it should be carved, not uncarved. Second, even the uncarved variants have the line beginning "in this", which at least scans as iambic pentameter. Mr Waugh has quoted a version of the poem with the wrong word, that doesn't scan, and here's the thing: it does not even exist! Mr Waugh has not supplied a citation for his version, and I challenge him to do so, as as far as I can see, it simply does not exist as he has reproduced it. His version omits the final couplet, which tends to negate the conclusion he wants to draw from the poem. So my challenge: provide the citation for this version of the Basse problem with (i) uncarved (ii) Under this marble...and (iii)omitting the final couplet. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected and apologise, but until then, I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that the poem doesn't even exist as Mr Waugh has quoted it, and I challenge him to provide the reference.
This entire business of trying to bury Oxford in Westminster goes back to 1943. See Newsletter of the Shakespeare Fellowship June of that year, Vol 4 no 4. At least they quote the Basse poem correctly there, and they are not trying to smuggle the Earl under the Shakespeare Monument, just into the deVere family crypt in Westminster abbey. Which would at least make more sense than under an unmarked spot. And there have been other attempts over the years to make this work, but Mr Waugh has upped the ante, and bypassed the family crypt and gone for the Gold Prize, under the Shakespeare monument. But to get there, he has had to perform these contortions with the Basse poem, to make it apply to Oxford using the wrong uncarved variant, and ommitting the final couplet, which also rather spoils the effect. That's Part 1.
Part II uses the geometry devised by Alan Green, again without acknowledgement, and then uses the ridiculous T=ox equation, which is flat out false, to make the whole secret treasure map fit.
The whole thing is just a big chunk of fake history, and the fact that none of the Oxfordians are doing the due diligence to check any of this tells you everything you need to know about the intellectual rigour of the movement. It's all just a fantasy and this current episode of trying to get him under the Shak Monument is a shining example of the way the game is played. I actually gave a presentation on this whole business to the Francis Bacon society earlier this year, which was intended for youtube. However, the poor dears down at the FBS had a fit of the vapours and were so horrified by how devastating my argument was against this that they have decided to suppress the video. It is not even available for members to see. I must have hit a nerve. Why don't you write to them and ask to see it. If my arguments are so weak, then you can go ahead and write comments like this underneath.
Oxford remains exactly where he was buried. Hackney Churchyard. The diary entry on which this entire wild good chase is predicated simply had it wrong. It is not reliable as a source, as it also claimed that he was a member of the Privy Council, which is not true. So the whole thing is just an exercise in wishful thinking and slightly dubious mishandling of the textual materials. Oxfordians, if there are any out there with integrity, should check out what I am saying, and either prove me wrong, or concede it.
My apologies for supposing you a Stratfordianist. I have enormous respect for the Baconians and welcome you and all others to the discussion threads of this channel. The Baconians are an honourable brotherhood to which Oxfordians are closely allied. 'My Cousin Bacon' as Oxford referred to him was, I believe, involved in the Shakespeare authorship mystery, but not as principle author. Incidentally one of the finest Baconians of the present age, Peter Dawkins, told me when I showed him these encryptions over lunch at his house in Warwickshire that it was the best evidence he had ever seen for Oxford and, strangely, picked on the very bit about which you are complaining - the Tau-Bull - as being the moment when he realised it had to be taken seriously! Among the many versions of the Basse poem which have 'uncarved' (as listed in Wells and Taylor, rather weakening your claims for a 'copying error' I think) the one reproduced in 'Shakespeare Allusion Book' is there described as 'a much finer reading' than the alternatives 'sacred' and 'carved'. 'Uncarved' and 'sacred' have the same number of syllables so scansion is not an issue. You say the issue of Oxford being buried in Westminster goes back to 1943. As I mentioned in my last post it is brought up by Oxford's first cousin, Percival Golding c. 1619: "He dyed at his house in Hackney in the monthe of June Anno 1604 and leith buried at Westminster.' Oxford was never buried in 'Hackney Churchyard' as you put it, but within the church. Evidence of his uncarved marble monument with 17 crucifiers and two erased shields survives in pictorial form. I think Oxford's first cousin was more likely to know where he is buried than you, no?
I have acknowledged Alan Green's discovery of the geometry of the title-page many times in my work in print, in online presentations and in public speeches. He did not however discover the all important Chi Rho which points to de Vere and God as the author of the Sonnets, though I freely admit that I could not have found it without prior knowledge of his hidden circle - one of the greatest Shakespearean discoveries of modern times.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank you for your generous replies and the welcome. I come in peace, to rebut your argument, which I take as fair play, but of course in respect.
Now, thank you for the Shakespeare Allusion book reference, but actually it does not reflect the version you have cited. It says: "In this uncarved marble,"
is an earlier, as it is unquestionably a much finer, reading than either " Under this cawed marble, " or " Under this sable marble,".
But you don't have "In this uncarved marble", you have "Under this uncarved marble"....so again I ask, where have you obtained your version from please? While we await that information, I will say this: "In this uncarved marble" makes no sense. No one was ever buried "In" marble. So there is a problem with that version. And I'm afraid I do not agree with your syllable count. In poetry, uncarved is three syllables. I was going to say clearly, but stopped myself. :-) But look, by far the vast majority of the versions have "carved marble..." (I'm sorry, I don't know the exact numbers, but there are 35-40 versions extant? and you say 4 have uncarved? so that makes 31-36 versions which do not have uncarved....), plus the fact that it doesn't make sense as "In this uncarved marble", plus the fact, I repeat, that it doesn't scan...leads me to conclude that it is not the correct original reading. It was quicker to say "clearly" the first time, but there, I've spelled it out.
But, please, let's begin with the version you have cited...if the version does not even exist, then the argument is moot. So please, may we have the reference please, or a concession that it does not exist as reproduced?
Dear Mr Miles: I thought the word in contention was 'uncarved'. 'Under', which I deem to be irrelevant to our discussion, I took from failing memory. 'In this uncarved marble is correct' but I cannot believe you wish to point-score over 'under' since 'uncarved' is what we are disputing . You say 'No one was ever buried "In" marble'. What? "who now lies entombed in this marble stone?". Who said that? Lodge I think in his Epitaph to Eurimone. 'In this marble buried lies...' 'Wise and clean Richard, second of that name lyes in this marble frame' (Heywood). That bit of your argument definitely needs a rethink. The full quotation from SAB edited by Munro, and adopted by him from Ingilby says "We believe that the Fennell version (adopted as our text), "In this uncarved marble," is an earlier, as it is unquestionably a much finer, reading than either "Under this carved marble" or "Under this sable marble" which last occurs in the Sloane copy.' So I think you will have to take up the issue of which is the finer, 'carved' or 'uncarved', with the ghosts of past Shakespearean scholars. All I can say with certainty is that 'uncarved' appears in multiple source copies, it is valid, it makes sense and it scans. Sorry to have confused you with 'under'.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 My point was that your version of the poem as quoted does not exist. I am glad to be vindicated. It also lacks the final couplet, which in my view tends to negate your intepretation of the poet's intent. The final couplet confirms that he believes Shakespeare should remain where he is buried. By leaving this couplet off, the casual reader, who doesn't take the trouble to look up the poem, is not aware that Basse actually argues for Shakespeare to remain buried where he is. In my view, your argument would be more robust if you had discussed the carved/uncarved variation, and if you had left the final couplet intact. As it stands, it looks like you have cherry picked and even altered (by omitting the final couplet) a version of the poem to suit your argument. That's my view. No one else has noticed that your version is not valid, so I point it out, and am glad that you have acknowledged my point.
You seem to have lost track of the massive 'IF' in the poem. In any case I am rather surprised you wish argue these points as Basse's epitaph fits the Baconian case just as snugly as it works for Oxford. Both Oxford and Bacon were lords, both buried in unmarked tombs. Basse is saying that if 'Shakespeare' cannot be moved to Westminster alongside Chaucer, Beaumont and Spenser then at least his tomb should be marked with his name, title, honours, achievements etc etc, so that he may be memorialised as 'Lord and not tenant' of his grave and will be an honour for others in future to be buried by him. One early version ends: 'That, unto Vs and others it may bee Honor, hereafter to be laid by thee.' Here I think the strange orthography of 'us' as 'Vs' subtly pleads for a Vere tomb along the lines you suggested in your earlier post. I cannot get exercised about your 'vindication' or otherwise concerning the word 'under' - de minimis non curat Alex
“and of course we all know _____”
[fill in something I did, of course, not know]
Silexedra... always question truth...
H.H. = Holy House.
---------------------------------------------------------
*EVERYONE* can agree that the 1603 "Bad Quarto" was
written about, for (& most probably by) Oxford himself.
..................................
1) CORAMBIS = William Cecil
2) LAERTES = Robert/Thomas Cecil
3) OPHELIA = Anne Cecil
4) HAMLET = Oxford
..................................
But one has to really ask oneself:
*WHO THE HECK* are Oxford's frenemies:
*ROSSEnCRAFT* & *GUILDerSTONE* ?
Clearly they are the *ROSICRUCIANS* & *FREEMASONS*
who, *ALONE*, have had the means, motive & opportunity
to successfully hide Edward de Vere's name for 400 years.
Fortunately, however, *ROSICRUCIANS* & *FREEMASONS*
simply love codes, ciphers, riddles & cryptograms.
---------------------------------------------------------
Oxford needed *COSEN BACON* & Seriant *HARRIS*
in order to both edit & poblish *HIS BOOKE* "HAMLET"
---------------------------------------------------------
_____ *SEALD & DOONE*
............................................
ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/PERSONAL/011007.html
.
Cecil Papers 88/101 (bifolium, 232mm x 170mm),
Oxford to Cecil; 7 October 1601 (W337;F593).
.
...for I am aduised, that I may passe *MY BOOKE* from her
Magestie, yf a warrant may be procured to my *COSEN BACON*
and Seriant [=Sergeant] *HARRIS* to perfet [= *PERFECT* ] yt.
Whiche beinge *DOONE* , I know to whome formallye to
thanke, but reallye they shalbe, and are from me, and myne,
*to be SEALED VP* in an *AETERNALL REMEMBRANCE* to yowre selfe.
And thus *WISHINGE ALL HAPPINES* to yow, and sume fortunat
meanes to me, wherby I myght recognise soo *DIEPE* merites,
I take my leaue this 7th of October from my House at HAKNEY. 1601.
.
Yowre most assured and louinge Broother.
(signed) Edward Oxenford (ital.; 4+7)
.
Addressed (O): To the ryghte honorable & my very good Broother
Sir Robert Cecill on [=one] of her Magestyes pryvie Councel
and principall Secretarie giue thes at the Coorte. [seal]
.
Endorsed: 1601 7 October: Erle of Oxenford to my Master.
---------------------------------------------------------
__ Hamlet (1603: Bad Quarto 1) Act 1 Scene 4
........................................................
Ham.: I MARY i'st and though I am Natiue here,
. and to t[H]e m[A]ne[R] bo[R]ne, [I]t i[S]
. a custome, more honourd in the breach,
. Then in the obseruance.
...............................................
.
.
. t o t
. [H] e m
. [A] n e
. [R] b o
. [R] n e,
. [I] t i
. [S]
.
[HARRIS] 3
---------------------------------------------------------
__ Hamlet (1603: Bad Quarto 1) Act 5 Scene 1
.........................................................
Hamlet: An excellent fellow by the Lord Horatio,
. This *SEAUEN YEARES* haue I noted it: the toe of the pesant,
. *COMES so neere the heele of the courtier* ,
. That hee gawles his kibe, I prethee tell mee one thing,
. How long will a man lie in the ground before hee *ROTS*?
.
Clowne: I faith {SIR}, if hee be not rotten [B]efore
. *HE BE* laide in, [A]s w{E} haue many pocky [C]or{S}es,
. H(E) will last y[O]u, e{I}ght (Y)eares, *a TAN[N]ER*
. {WILL}(L)ast you eight yeare(S) full out, or nine.
.....................................................
.
.
. f a i t h {S I R} i f h e e b e n o
. t (R) o t t e n [B] e f o r e*H E B E*
. l (A) i d e i n [A] s w {E}h a u e m a
. n (Y) p o c k y [C] o r {S}e s H (E)w i
. l (L) l a s t y [O] u e {I}g h t (Y)e a
. r (E) S A T A N [N] E R {W I L L}(L)a s
. t (Y) o u e i g h t y e a r e (S)a f
. u l l o u t o r n i n e.
........................................................
[{SIR}BACON] 17: Bacon knighted in 1603 (the year of Q1)
(RAYLEY) 17
{WISE} -17: Grand Prior *ANDREW {WISE}*
{WILL.}(SLYE) -17: cast for Every Man in His Humour (1598)
...........................................................
Hamlet: And why A {TANNER}?
.
Clowne: Why his hide is so tanned with his trade,
. That it will holde out water, that's a parlous
. Deuourer of your dead body, a great soaker.
--------------------------------------------------------------
. THE KNIGHTS OF SAINT JOHN IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND & IRELAND
. www.saintjohn.org/priory.htm
.
--------------------------------------------------------
. 1597, Richard III (Q1 STC 22314):
. THE TRAGEDY OF / King Richard the third. Containing,
. His teacherous Plots againft his brother Clarence:
. the pittiefull murther of his iunocent nephewes:
. his tyrannicall vfurpation: with the whole courfe
. of his detefted life, and moft deferued death.
. As it hath beene lately Acted by the
. Right honourable the Lord Chamber-laine his feruants.
.
. Printed by *VALENTINE Sims*, for *ANDREW {WISE}*,
.
__ dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the
________ Signe of the *ANGELl* 1597.
-----------------------------------------------
______ Hamlet (Q2, 1604)
.
King: Follow him at foote,
. Tempt him with speede abord,
. Delay it not, Ile haue him hence to
. nig[H]t. Aw[A]y, fo[R] eue[R]y th[I]ng i[S]
. *SEALD and DONE*
...............................................
______ Hamlet (Folio, 1623)
.
King: Follow him at foote,
. Tempt him with speed aboord:
. Delay it not, Ile haue him hence to
. nig[H]t. Aw[A]y, fo[R] eue[R]y th[I]ng i[S]
. *SEAL'D and DONE*
...............................................
.
.
. n i g
. [H]{t A w}
. [A] y f o
. [R] e u e
. [R] y t h
-. [I] n g i
. [S]
.
. *SEAL'D and DONE*
.
[HARRIS] 4
-----------------------------------------------------
tinyurl.com/ycow7kej
The contract for building _The Fortune Playhouse_
*SEALED and deliu'ed* by the saide *PETER* Streete
in the p'esence of me *william [HARRIS]* Pub Scr
And me frauncis Smyth appr to the said Scr /
[endorsed:]
*Peater Streat* ffor The Building of the ffortune
--------------------------------------------------
the star chamber?!? i thought it was lost! i guess it was just destroid.
Rabato (neckwear, geometry); Abarot, the Hebrew seventh heaven where the Seraphim live; Tabaro (Venetian dialect for cloaked); Tabora (the hidden Tabor light of Revelations and the light of the Book of Revelations). Lux COLL[ABORAT]UM. Collum means neck. The light is shining from the neck.
as a crack statistician and scientist, waugh can perform a simple test* that will add credence to any of his "findings": any time he finds a "secret message," he can measure the entropy of the text's letter doublets and triplets. if it has significantly lower entropy**, waugh has eliminated one way we might falsify his hypothesis***; if it doesn't, then we'll all get treated to another delightfully entertaining round of ad hoc reasoning. it's really win/win.
* it's a test that'll take about 1/1000th of the time it takes him to find these little "secret messages"
** one could, of course, argue that oxford designed these messages so as to hide any reduced doublet entropy. but come on already. we're talking about the "farting earl"
***** as both an experimental scientist and a philosopher of science, waugh knows we never really prove our hypotheses but instead fail to falsify them (and, once we get tired of trying to falsify them, we accept them). waugh is in no way out of his depths here
Something like this, perhaps?
-----------------------------------------------------------
www.etymonline.com/word/dissolve#etymonline_v_11506
{DISSOLVE} (v.) late 14c.
dissolven, "to break up, disunite, separate into parts"
from dis- "apart" (see dis-) + sol[VERE] "to loosen, untie,"
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Folio (1623)
TO THE MEMORIE of the deceased Authour
*MAISTER W. SHAKESPEARE*
SHake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes giue
The world thy Workes: thy Workes, by which, out-liue
Thy Tombe, thy name must: when that stone is rent,
And Time {DISSOLVES thy STRATFORD MONIMENT},
Here we aliue shall view thee still. This Booke,
When Brasse and Marble fade, shall make thee looke
Fresh to all Ages: when Posteritie
Shall loath what's new, thinke all is prodegie
That is not *S[H]AKE-SPEARES; eu'ry Line, each Verse*
Here shall revi*VE, RE*[D]eeme thee from thy Herse.
Nor Fire, nor cankring Age, as N[A]so said,
Of his, Thy wit-fraught Booke shall once invade.
Nor shall I e're beleeve, or thinke thee dead.
(Though mist) [U]ntill our bankrout Stage be sped
(Impossible) with som[E] new straine t' out-do
Passions of Iuliet, and her Romeo;
O[R] till I heare a Scene more nobly take,
Then when thy half=[S]word parlying Romans spake.
Till these, till any of thy (v)olumes rest
Shall with more fire, more feeling be expr{E}st,
Be sure, our Shake=speare, thou canst nEVER DYE,
But cr{O}wn'd with Lawrell, liue eternally.
L. Digges.
.................................................
.
.
. whenPosterit ieSh a lllo athwha tsnewthinkeallisp
. rodegieThatis *notS [H] AKES PEARES euryLineeachVerse*
. Hereshallreui *VERE*[D] eeme theefr omthyHerseNorFire
. norcankringAg easN [A] sosa idOfhi sthywitfraughtBoo
. keshalloncein uade [N] orsh allIer ebeleeueorthinket
. heedeadThough mist [U] ntil lourba nkroutStagebesped
. Impossiblewit hsom [E] news traine toutdoPassionsofI
. ulietandherRo meoO [R] till Iheare aScenemorenoblyta
. keThenwhenthy half [S] WORD parlyi ngRomansspakeTill
. thesetillanyo fthy (v) olum esrest Shallwithmorefire
. morefeelingbe expr {E} stBe sureou rShakespearethouc
. anstnEVERDYEB utcr {O} wndw ithLaw rellliueeternally.
.
[H.DANUERS] 45 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 192,000
----------------------------------------------------------
. "Moore C W The Freemasons Monthly Magazine Vol IV 1845"
.
GRAND MASTERS, OR PATRONS, OF THE FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS IN ENGLAND,
1618.[W]illiam [H]erbert , Earl of Pembroke, was chosen Grand Master.
He appointed Inigo Jones his Deputy.
1630-1-2. [H]enry [DANVERS] , Earl of Danby.
.......................................................................
wikivisually.com/wiki/Henry_Danvers%2C_1st_Earl_of_Danby
----------------------------------------------------------------------
@@arthurneuendorffer4914 actually, no, nothing like that. i was thinking more about a reduction in entropy in a text's bi- and trigrams. for example, see above where i mention testing for a reduction in entropy in a text's bi- and trigrams. look for the words 'test' and 'entropy' and you'll have found it! you know, kinda standard non-goofy analysis. HTH
@@ChrisHanks_ColonelOfTruth Alexander's main argument doesn't depend on the validity of the text's bi- and trigrams; it depends on the overwhelming evidence that Freemason's tried to sell the public on the idea that court plays chock full of inside jokes and bisexual/homosexual references could be accepted as a national treasure.
And at least two contemporary Freemason Grand Masters are referenced in the introductory FF material: Master [W]illiam [H]erbert (explicitly) and [H]enry [DANVERS] (with a low entropy cipher).
Chris Hanks wrote:
Still waiting for Chris to "explain how I was misusing probabilities."
@@arthurneuendorffer4914 still waiting for you to re-post that silly 'DANVERS' post where you were misusing probabilities.
Just because Hemings & Condell’s names(in a different hand)were inserted in Shaksper’s will/ is little proof they knew him.
In the will of Augustine Philips, they are all named as fellows. They are all named as members of The King's Men in several documents of the era. Hemminges was one of the witnesses for Shakespeare's purchase of the Blackfriars gatehouse on 1613. Richard Burbage, Will Kempe and William Shakespeare were named together performing plays at court. Shakespeare, Burbage, Hemminges and Condell are named in the cast lists of two Ben Jonson plays. Shakespeare and Burbage appear together being paid for an impresa created for the Earl of Rutland. Lawsuits involving Condell and Hemminges make Shakespeare.
The line about leaning money to Burbage, Hemminges and Condell to buy memorial rings is also found in the official probate copy made several weeks later. If it was added, it was added before then.
His name was Shakspur-not Shakespeare!
@@craigster1244 According to whom?
Fascinating watching all the Oxfordians falling over themselves to uncritically accept this fake history. Nobody wants to dispute with Mr Waugh! Look, the graphics are great and it's all very learned, but there are multiple fatal flaws in the argument which are not so difficult to discern. In Mr Waugh's Part 1, he fundamentally mishandles the text of the William Basse poem, resting his entire argument on the word 'uncarved' which is clearly a copying error. In Part 2, he bases his argument on a very silly notion that the letter T derives from the Ox. It does not. The letter A derives from the Ox. Not T. Look it up. He does this by mispresenting a bonkers Masonic book from the 1800s, Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy by Robert H Brown (though he fails to credit the work). Brown is the only person in history to claim T derives from the Ox, and as he did so in 1882, it could hardly have formed the basis for the suggested Sonnets encoding, let alone a decoding. Take away these two supports, and the entire thesis collapses. For bonus points, the Sonnets, which Waugh claims secretly record Oxford's burial in Westminster Abbey, were published 1609 but according to Oxford's wife's will he was still buried at Hackney Churchyard in 1612. So the whole thing is a hot mess, but with admittedly very nice graphics. As I say, what is most interesting to me is how no Oxfordians are scrutinising these arguments with a sufficiently fine-toothed comb, but instead just accepting it at face value as true because they want it to be. When things get to this stage, it's the sure mark of a cult. The idea that Oxford, the highest ranking noblemen in the land, was dug up in the middle of the night and secretly buried in an unmarked grave, against the dying wishes of his wife, and when there was already a deVere famliy crypt in Wesminster Abbey is completely unthinkable. But go for it Oxfordians, if you wish hard enough, maybe you can make it come true.
Simon Miles wrote: >
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Miles wrote:
Alexander is arguing that Oxford was dug up and buried in *a secretly marked grave* in Westminster Abbey irrespective of the wishes of his wife.
No doubt it was a Faustian bargain in which Masons assured Oxford that his works would be immortalized (...a lot better deal than Hackney Church offered).
When Stratfordianists use the word ‘clearly’ we know they are building their houses on quicksand. Simon Miles writes that the word ‘uncarved’ in Basse’s poem about Shakespeare’s tomb is ‘clearly a copying error’. The poem states that Shakespeare is unworthy of the place where he is buried, so to be under an ‘uncarved’ marble reinforces the exact point that the poet is making. The word ‘uncarved’ appears in at least four source versions of this poem according to Wells and Taylor (1987). Oxford was first buried in an 'uncarved marble tomb’ at Hackney in 1604 but Stratford-Shakspere was not buried under any ‘uncarved marble’ at any time, which explains Mr Miles need to describe ‘uncarved’ as ‘clearly a copying error’. Oxford was reinterred from Hackney to Westminster sometime after 1612 and before March 1625 as we are informed by his first cousin Percival Golding.
It is an error to assume that if x is used to symbolise y then nothing else can be used to symbolise y. The common root of Tau and Tauros or Taurus is self evident. Indeed the words ‘Tau’ and ‘Taurus’ were interchangeable long before the ‘bonkers’ 1882 source discovered by Mr Miles of which I am unaware (see for instance Thomas Oliver ‘A New Handling of the Planisphere, 1601). In Hebrew aleph and tav (the first and last letters of the alphabet) represent the first and the last, and both were anciently used to represent the ox. The Atbash cipher interchanges these two letters. In the sonnets cipher not only do we see the T or Tau representing ‘the first and the last’ but the encrypter goes out of his way to illustrate the significant ‘fourth T’ of the title-page as an ox in clear contrast to the T next to it which represents God - ‘clearly’ another ‘bonkers’ 19th Century idea according to Mr Miles.
Mr Miles is also in error when he claims there to be a ‘de Vere family crypt’ at Westminster Abbey. Two Vere brothers (cousins) are buried in one chapel, in another lies the 18th Earl
of Oxford and the wife of Aubrey, 20th Earl of Oxford, in the North aisle lies Hugh de Vere, 4th Earl of Oxford, elsewhere the countess of the 17th Earl of Oxford. There is no ‘Vere family crypt’ nor ever has been at Westminster Abbey. Oxford was moved to the South transept not to be near his relations but to lie in geometric relation to Chaucer and Spenser. Art was more important to Oxford than nobility (see Sonnet 125). Oxford was not the 'highest ranking nobleman in the land' - I do not 'rest my entire argument' on anything - 'the middle of the night' is Mr Miles's fanciful conceit not mine etc etc.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank you for your courteous reply, which I appreciate. This though: "the ‘bonkers’ 1882 source discovered by Mr Miles of which I am unaware": I am not sure how you can be unaware of the Robert H Brown source, as you reproduce a diagram from his book in your 2017 SAT lecture! If I may be so bold, you actually fudge his claim in there that the ox-heiroglyph was the ancient egyptian for tau. Brown actually does not make that claim, he merely claims that this glyph was an ancient Egyptian hieroglyph, but he does not actually come out and claim that it stood for the tau. I would actually challenge whether it is even an egyptian hieroglyph: I have searched Gardiner and cannot find it, so I would ask please for, first, a citation that shows it actually was an egyptian glyph, and secondly, that it stood for tau, or anything like that. The common root of tau and taurus may or may not be self-evident, but as far as I can see it was not used in ancient Egypt that way, and that is the claim made in the 2017 talk to establish the identity. If the equivalance of ox and T can be demonstrated reliably from some other source, then great, but it is not established from the references supplied in the 2017 talk.
As for the Basse: I will await the citation for the version you have used before responding.
And a small correction if I may: I'm no Stratfordian. :-) I fly the flag for Bacon.
As for the DeVere family vault, I am afraid I don't pay close enough attention to always get the nuance correct, but in this case, I was quoting the opinion of Phyllis Carrington, writing in the newsletter of the Shakespeare Fellowship, June 1943, who writes: "It would seem therefore, that Sir Francis Vere's tomb was regarded as a family vault". She thought that was where he might have been re-interred to. Other's since then have also made the suggestion. To me, it's all besides the point, as I see no evidence he was ever moved. But clearly, other Oxfordians have taken it that there was in effect a DeVere family crypt in Westminster.
for a matter of business and propaganda, you restored the old westminster abbey, ...
I absolutely ❤️ when I’m blown away by another new tidbit the wool comber saint 🫡 brilliant