Is this the face of Shakespeare?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 тра 2021
- A pdf of this presentation is available at drive.google.com/file/d/1bJDd...
In this video I take you on a journey to the early 18th century to look at the faces of Shakespeare. The problem is whether or not any are authentic. The story centres around a very interesting painting.
Fascinating! Thank you for your studious discussion. I agree with you that Edward de Vere is Shakespeare! Wonderful discussion!
You make a sound case for Edward de Vere being Shakespeare after falling out of Grace with the Queen. Having some knowledge of the period, and a firm base in John Dee, I have been enchanted from your first offering. Your thorough study, exhaustive search for primary sources, and your quickness to put forward arguments against your theory make a series of compelling chapters to this (and other) mysteries. This deserves many more views and subscribers…thank you.🖤🇨🇦
Hello Tamara, Many thanks for your kind words. I have been trying to stimulate thought and discussion about Edward de Vere as Shakespeare. Unfortunately in the UK this is a closed argument among those with, for whatever reason, a vested interest in the status quo. Most arguments take place in a very rarified atmosphere, and I thought there was a place to present these in a more accessible form. You may be interested to know that I have now located a 200 year old sketch of the Tring Version of the pregnancy portrait, which reveals interesting findings. I will post it shortly.
Kind regards
David
@@davidshakespeare1767 That is very exciting news, and I look forward to seeing the sketch and your assessment of it. Swimming against the stream in historical circles can be a lonely task. You are doing it the right way, and as you continue to dig, I do not doubt that you will come across more and more material that supports your opinion. In terms of the identity of Shakespeare’s identity (although I had not heard of de Vere as a candidate before), it actually makes more sense than the other prospects I am aware of in the face of your research. I am playing catch up, having only discovered you yesterday, and I have been watching your postings in sequence. I will look into the specific postings by the gentleman whom you have suggested once I am up to date with you. I’m looking forward to seeing where this leads, and hopefully finding some clue that can help along the way. I’m always happy to be a sounding board and I have the largest occult library in North America, with all the writings of John Dee and others from his time period. He was a part of the court of Elizabeth and served as court Astrologer, so there was much that he knew. Thank you for your kind reply…Tamarra.🖤🇨🇦
@@davidshakespeare1767 Hello from Italy. Thank you for the video, very well done and convincing. Could you make a video on the arguments for and against John Florio as Shakespeare?
Hello there, very many thanks for your comments. I am sorry to have been so long to reply but this has been fro health reasons. Your support makes all the hard work worthwhile. Kind regards David
Utterly fascinating!! Revelatory! I loved discovering that the engraving for the first Stratford Trinity Monument Vertue used the Chandos portrait as a model!
Hello Robin, Thanks for your comment. To be honest I was quite surprised myself when I started work on this how much would come to light. Kind regards David
You haven`t discovered anything ,what you have heard is an opinion being delivered as fact.
Rather like the horse shit that Edward De Vere is buried in Westminster Abbey.
Fascinating an excellent presentation.
Well laid out and very logically presented. Your case is convincing as well as entertaining and thought provoking.
Thank you. Fascinating and well presented.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Again, fascinating...thank you!
Fascinating. thank you ♥
Hello there, thanks for comment. It makes all the hard work worthwhile. Regards David
Please keep making your incredibly good content - thank you !
Hello Barbara, Thanks for your support. I will do my best to find other topics to write about. kind regards David
""
@@davidshakespeare1767 Thank you Sir for this and the possibility of future videos ! 💯❗️
Hello, I also have a very old portrait, the same size as that of Sanders. Additionally, the portrait has a coat of arms, the same one that is above William Shakespeare's grave. Additionally, the portrait has inscriptions and a very old Shakespeare signature. The portrayed person has an earring in the ear and the same loss on the forehead as in the Chandos portrait. This is a very interesting oil portrait on canvas. I think it is also very important to the world of science.
Hello Adam, Sorry for the delay in reply. I had overlooked your comment. I would love to see an image of your painting. Let me know how you could get one to me. Regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 Hello, please give me your e-mail and I will send you my very interesting portrait
Your research and manner of presentation really is excellent thanks! Have you considered putting a book together incorporating these interesting topics?
The simple answer is no. I have chosen quite deliberately to provide videos with accompanying illustrated pdfs of each one. I reckon that this will reach more interested people than a formal book. It also leaves me free to edit and alter them as new information comes to light. If you wish to print hem out and put into a folder please feel free! Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 quite right I suspect! Nevertheless I'm tempted to gather your pdf versions into a hard copy folder and call it your book!
@@davidshakespeare1767
I wonder if that’s really your name? We had a meeting of all the extant Shakespeare’s just before we opened The Globe Theatre. We’re you there?
@@janel342 Yes it is. I live very close to Stratford upon Avon and held regular clinics there. It is a common name in these parts and I have traced my own family tree back to the same ancestors as William Shaksper the glove makers son. Pity he didn't write the plays. Regards David
Wonderful what an amazing amount of research thank you for sharing 🙏
Many thanks Martian, Your comment makes all the hard work worthwhile.
Wonderful !!
Hello Lenore, I am glad you are still finding my presentations of interest. Your support makes it all worthwhile. Kind regards David
You ask what do I think? I think you have it absolutely correct based upon the excellent material presented to validate your assessment. I have merely my intuition to guide me - and I concur with your conclusion. Thank you - I loved this presentation :)
This would be worthy of a Fake or Fortune episode.
A big Thank you for your work !
Hello there, Thanks for your support It makes all the hard work worthwhile. Regards David
Very interesting presentation. Summary note 5. Should this read that the style of beard and ruff were late 16th early 17th Century? ie late 1500s early 1600s
Hello Clare, You are quite right, my error. After a while word blindness sets in! Kind regards David
Excellent video. I imagine these are a lot of work to put together, but I wonder if you might consider doing a similar video on the Ashbourne portrait? That story is quite remarkable too. Thank you for this though. Again, excellent work.
Hi there, thanks for your comment. Unfortunately the Ashbourne portrait is a minefield and has been written about extensively, so I have steered clear of it so far.Regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 Ah, that's a shame. Because your kind of pictorial analysis would have been great. No matter. Thanks for your reply and all the best.
Missed you!
So from this fascinating video, we can summarise the following - Shakespeare (from all the available information) was almost certainly a Mason. He had ginger / red curly hair. Brown or hazel eyes. Quite a strong, possibly sharp nose, and even from mid twenties, had a retreating hairline, which he may have strenously tried to hide. He wore an earing, which could imply quite a dandy at court, not the kind of thing a rustic from the Shires might have the confidence to indulge in. You know I have never accepted The Chandos portrait, always felt there was something wrong about it, but I do buy the Harley miniature. It's just a feeling in my bones, but yes for me, that's the great man himself!
Excellent and very interesting.
I do not see the similarity with Horace Vere - but can definitely see a resemblance with the known portraits of Edward De Vere.
He looks wind-burned on the face as a fair-skinned person would be after a lifetime of riding. This happened to Elizabeth Charlotte Princess Palatine during the reign of Louis XIV and is shown in one of her older portraits (can’t find it atm).
It is also my understanding sumptuary laws did not permit tradesmen to wear neck ruffs period.
Tradesmen? I don't know, but Shakespeare was a gentleman.
If you would have shown the first drawing of the Shakespeare memorial in the church all of this would have collapsed so I can understand why you avoided it. After all the original didn’t show a writer but a wool trader…. 🤯
First, I would like to compliment you on your extensive research and quality video. Secondly, I'm an artist and, as many of us do, I often use red as an underpainting so that is not at all unusual. To me, this looks remarkably like a Nicholas Hilliard work. The framing may have cut off any writing in the arch above his head that is often seen in gold script or the background has been painted over. Why? Issac Oliver was said to be Hilliard's chief pupil or was he? From my own artistic understanding, I do not believe this is a portrait of Edward de Vere. The features just do not match, and with taking aging into account, even less so.. An x-ray might be very telling. Now for my big surprise. Nicholas Hilliard was an alias of Francis Bacon, who used several artist personas to gain access to the courts of Europe to spy. Jacob Robert's recent decryption of the Shakespeare funerary plaque, created by Bacon, show his use of many other surprising aliases, including writing as Shakespeare. Bacon clearly states that Edward de Vere (the result of a rape by her guardian, Thomas Seymour) and Robert Devereux (father not mentioned) were sons of Queen Elizabeth I. Bacon was actually the legitimate son of Mary Queen of Scots and King Francis II of France, making him not only King Francis III but also heir to the crown of England. His father died shortly before his birth. Catherine de Medici tried to poison Francis and was most displeased that it failed. Mary begged her cousin Elizabeth I for help. Elizabeth, still concerned about her own throne, agreed to have Mary return to Scotland, however Francis would remain in England under her watch. Bacon's other artistic endeavors, under aliases, included engraving and cartography, among many other things. Most of his works hold clues, once you know where to look. The miniature here might well be of William Shakespeare, possibly even from memory, the strawman for Bacon and his Rosacrucion projects. The portrait copy of Edward displays quite clearly dispays. a remarkable resemblance to Elizabeth, wether done by intention cannot be known. Hillard and Lens were both obvious Rosacrucions and might possibly both be Bacon, using a more mature style. There is more to tell here. Please take a closer look at Hilliard's works.
Sir Henry Neville (the Younger) is the true author of the Shake-Speare canon, and a step-cousin of Sir Francis Bacon, Verulem. Bacon was deeply involved in the production of the First Folio (1623). Two facts about Oxford: he was born too late and died too early. Neville was distantly related to the Arden family and he used Shaxper as a “straw man”.
WOW!
Like David Shakespeare, Bonner Cutting is an Oxfordian who believes that Alexander Pope had a role in concealing the truth about the authorship of the plays. But the motivation that she ascribes to Pope is quite different from the motivation suggested by David Shakespeare. Has anyone tried to explore the issue of Pope’s motivation, taking into account the very different views of David and Bonner? Have any Pope scholars considered the matter?
Great research!
Thanks Susan, It's Avery interesting story isn't it? Regards David
The whole De Vere/ Shakespeare debate is very seductive, so much so, that I am now mildly addicted to the related videos of which this is an excellent example.
Hi Stephen, you need to be careful. That was where I started out 10 years ago when I thought I would spend a couple of hours looking into William Shakespeare after researching my own family tree. regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 Maybe we should start a Shakespeare 12-step program for the seriously addicted.
This is an excellent video and demonstrates that simple comparisons can solve mysteries while complex computer analysis can muddy the waters.
There is a typo at 49:34: point 5 reads "late 17th and early 18th century" when it should read "late 16th and early 17th century". Centuries are always measured one digit ahead of the first two digits of the year: therefore, the 16th century would be the period from 1500 to 1599. This is because the years 0 to 100 (or 99) are the 1st century, the years 100 to 199 are the second century, and so on. That is why we are now in the 21st century, not the 20th. Too often the newer generations get this wrong.
There is compelling evidence as presented by John Anthony in his UA-cam series The Sonnet Number Code, that Edward de Vere was a leader of what became the Freemasons, which ties in nicely with the Freemasons mentioned at the beginning of this video. Indeed, the funeral procession of Anthony Sayer, the founder of the Premier Grand Lodge of England (founded in 1717) started at the Shakespeare's Head tavern. Coincidence? I think not. What better way to secretly honour the man who was a principle founder of the fraternity than to gather together the most senior Freemasons in England at a tavern that used the earl's pseudonym.
Hello there, Thanks for your comment. Date blindness on my part I'm afraid. Glad you enjoyed it. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 No worries. I love your approach to the SAQ. We need all the fresh perspectives we can get to batter down the walls of academia which refuses to see what is right in front of them: evidence that de Vere wrote using a pseudonym.
@@ronroffel1462 Batter down the walls? They can't every hear you knocking.
What is known of the handwriting on the back of this miniature? Has the handwriting been compared with that of any of the people mentioned in the family tree/s?
Guido Fawkes - That's a good question.
Hello, yes the signature os that of Edward Harley 2nd Earl of Oxford. I am not sure of the word Shakespear, it could have been done by Bernard Lens the framer or added later when it was exhibited. Regards David
Thank you for this and for showing us the amazing miniature portrait. I would be very interested to know your views on the similarities between the Sanders portrait and the NPG L111 portrait by an unknown artist in the 17th century - a copy of a 1575 original of De Vere. The portraits and engravings of the Stratford Man, the Cobbe and Chandos portraits and the Droeshout engraving, though similar and superficially showing the same person, and from different periods, are completely different to the Sanders portrait, which was supposedly done by Sande, an apprentice in London "realising the genius of the great man". If this was done in 1605 when Sanders was in London, the Stratford man would have been 40.. but the image is of a much more youthful face. This is meant to be the best likeness as it was painted much closer to the lifetime of the alleged subject.
However, if we compare the NPG L111 portrait by an unknown artist in the 17th century - a copy of a 1575 original of De Vere - we can see that this is most probably the same person as the Sanders portrait of "Shakespeare". The very light beard and fair complexion look like a reversed mirror image of the other portrait, the hazel eyes in both are very different to the dark brown ones in the other more mature looking "Shakespeare" portraits. The 1575 original would place De Vere at age 25, which makes sense (the Stratford man being 11 at that time). If these portraits of are of the same person (which to me they seem to be) then we are looking at De Vere - but named as Shakespeare in the Sanders portrait (allegedly of 1605 when De Vere was 55 and the Stratford man 40 - but the person depicted cannot be so old!)... Thus the date of the Sanders painting must presumably be wrong and much closer to 1575.
Also, it's interesting to think of a link between "de Vere/ de Vert" and "Greene". Beaumont in "the Private Life of the Virgin Queen" argues that Marlowe, Greene and Peele were all employed as "masks or visors" for the real poet (identified as Bacon, but I am not arguing in favour of this) and mentions that all were "generally impoverished men, reckless in their living, defiant of law or common fame" (page 134); Greene supposedly died in abject poverty in 1592, and Peele, whose private life like those of the other two, "involved him in many a broil" died in 1597, all three were quite young when they died. Beaumont allows that a more famous person used these "masks" but then points out that Donelly claimed that Shaksper was going to be arrested under threat of the rack "to confess the name of the real writer" and Harry Percy rode to Stratford to get the Stratford man to flee in disguise; so he may have been in on the deceit.
Obviously relying on Ciphers of Donelly and Bacon doesn't prove their content, but all this is convincing that Bacon could have known the truth about De Vere and was helping in the cover-up, perhaps? On the other hand in the Folio of 1618 there is a dedication to Henri III of France. "I was not long since with certain young gentlemen of Anjou, my companions, discoursing together .. of the mean how all estates and conditions may live well and happily". when De Vere was no longer alive (d.1604) or Shaksper (1616) - but Bacon was.
Then there is the Prince Tudor theory, "that Elizabeth and Oxford had an illegitimate child, who was given the name William Hughes, and who became an actor under the stage-name "William Shakespeare". He adopted the name because his father, Oxford, was already using it as a pen-name for his plays. Oxford had borrowed the name from a third Shakespeare, the man of that name from Stratford-upon-Avon, who was a law student at the time, but who was never an actor or a writer."
Another thing in this theory is that Oxford did NOT die in 1604, but was abducted and banished to the island Mersea in the English Channel, where he completed Shake-speares Sonnets and The Tempest. (And that he was also the "hidden genius" behind the King James Bible.) The idea that Oxford didn't die but went into hiding after 1604 would make sense of the story that Shaksper also went into hiding (at around the same time) and that he was "ever-living" but in fact hiding, far away. Perhaps in France with his companions?
I wish there were a way to find the truth of all this amongst the mysterious names and portraits! I would be very interested in your views on any of the above. I am sorry it's a long comment.
Hello Peter, thanks for your comments. For the purposes of this study I was looking for as much circumstantial evidence that the Harley Miniature was genuine. Using my grid and dot system was just a small part of this and I restricted it to just the 1575 portrait of De Vere. I will try comparing the Sanders portrait, but as I am sure you know the dates are wrong both on the painting and the birthdate on the back. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 I enjoy your videos very much - A Waugh mentioned them in his recent ones and that led me to listen to them.
I'm so happy to have been introduced to your channel by the DVS. Bravo on an extremely impressive investigation. I am curious as to your opinion on whether the portrait claimed to be Edward de Vere sold by Pandolfini Auction House on 21 April 2015 is actually him. It was catalogued as being lent by John Harley, Esq., M.D. and listed in the book *Exhibition of the Royal House of Tudor* (1890), p. 76 (which may be found on the Internet Archive). I shouldn't be surprised to learn the foregoing Harley is a relation of the Harley earls of Oxford. The picture nevertheless does not appear to share any great resemblance to the Welbeck portrait. Speaking of which, do you know how we *know* the Welbeck is a "copy of a lost original"? I've never found the source for that claim. I am also squarely of the opinion that the St Albans portrait is of the 16th earl of Oxford, not Edward the 17th earl--do you share that opinion? In any event, the front as well as rear of the portrait auctioned by Pandolfini may be seen at this URL: www.pandolfini.it/uk/auction-0001-1/scuola-inglese-fine-sec-xviinizi-xvii.asp.
However, the scan of the portrait at the following URL will allow you to enlarge it in order to view it in great detail: www.arsvalue.com/it/lotti/138017/scuola-inglese-fine-sec-xvi-inizi-xviiritratto-di-edward-de-vere.
Once again, thank you for your fine work and research backed by your well-honed instincts. I will be viewing your other videos at my earliest convenience.
Look...Cipher did their homework and has relevant questions. Can't wait for a cogent response.
Seriously. Thanks for sharing your queries and for doing the legwork necessary to have an opinion. I may not agree, but I definitely respect the academic and rational approach. Don't change.
Hello there, sorry for the delay I thought I had sent you a reply but it must not pressed the reply button. I have looked at this painting and researched the owners. John Harley was a prominent London physician. He came from a modest background and was educated at Ludlow grammar school. He was no relation to the Harley family of London even though they had an estate near his home. He may have bought or been gifted the painting. It was also owned by a John Dickson Poynder whose wife was distantly related to the Dukes of Beauclerk who had de Vere connections. Poynders daughter died in 1987 and the painting was probably sold. It was bought by an Italian collector from the Pandolfini. I could not find anything about its provenance before John Harley had it. I may do a presentation on what I have. kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 No apology necessary; I very much appreciate your reply which already offers up several details that I didn't manage to discover. I must say how impressed I am with your seemingly innate historical sleuthing skills.🕵️♂️🔎 Should you decide to follow up taking a closer look at the Pandolfini (I'm unsure how else to refer to it at this point) portrait, I think I may say with some confidence that I would not be the only one interested in your insights and conclusions. It's quite a curious matter that there should be so few positively identified portraits of Edward de Vere. (Again--and I know mine is a minority opinion--I think the St Albans is John de Vere, 16th earl of Oxford; perhaps that's one you could tackle another time.) Whatever you choose to do, I hope you'll keep up your fascinating work. Your presentations are well conceived, well executed, and certainly offer a feast of food for thought.
What is the card that the miniature is painted upon made of?
Hello Emma, often playing cards were used and also vellum a type of parchment. regards David
I would have liked a lot more about the writing on the back. Is it possible to age the ink or the writing style. Were they done at the same time (I assume not). Do you have anything on this. I am researching a portrait of Shakespeare that was once in the Clarendon collection.
Hello Madoc, Thanks for your comment. I don't know about the writing. The word Shakespear looks very formal while the word Oxford is more of a scrawl. My understanding is that this latter word was written by the Robert Harley 1st Earl of Oxford second creation. I would suggest contacting the curators of pictures at Welbeck Abbey. They will have examples of his writings I'm sure. Good luck with your research. Kind regards
David
Thank you! Wonderful information, presented wonderfully.
Have you considered making the history of the Chandos portrait a topic of a video?
Hello there. The Chandos portrait has been investigated as far is a possible. The identity of the sitter is not know, but it is not Edward de Vere. regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 Thank you for the reply. I do realize the sitter is not de Vere. The possibility that the sitter is Shaksper of Stratford is widely acknowledged as legitimate. What I thought might interest you is how the provenance goes back to a man listed in Alexander Waugh's "So-and-so Knew" videos, Sir William Davenant.
What seems mysterious here is that an "insider" used this portrait to help promote the Stratford man and (reportedly) to bolster claims of his own nearness-to-greatness (as Shakespeare's son) -- and yet, he also set the portrait on a journey into obscurity before it was re-discovered many years later.
I realize all this is outside your general area of interest, but I thought I would expand on my question to be clear about why I thought it might interest you. All the best.
OK....William Shakespeare was an ALIAS name for Edward de Vere?
My ancestors come to the USA in the early 1600s from Staffordshire, England, by way of land (North Carolina) given through King George at this time...my maiden name is TRENTHAM. I assume my ancestors go back to the parents of Elizabeth Trentham???? This surname not common in GB or the USA, etc.
Who on this planet isn't fascinated by WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE over the centuries!? 🥰
THANK YOU for such detailed historical resesrch...love it!
Hello there, yes you are right, the Trentham name is common in Staffordshire. Look up Trentham Hall and Rochester Abbey. regards David
The Welbeck, (spelling?),. painting: the left shoulder, on the right of the Welbeck painting, seems to have the same gathering and contours of the veil as the left shoulder, the right of the painting of The Pregnant Queen Elizabeth
Very interesting however there are many images of Edward DeVere I’d like to see you compare the miniature to some more of them
It looks like the face recognition software that I am using is no more available I would be very pleased to do these comparaisons for you.
It appears to me that George Vertue's artistic licence, has extended to a bit of indulgence in adding his own features to his creations !
Where is this miniature now held? I missed that part.
Hello there. It is held in the Portland collection which is at Welbeck Abbey in Nottinghamshire. It is not on display and lives in a drawer. I made a special request to go and view it. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 Thankyou for your reply and thanks very much for your diligent work on the topic!
What explanation can be given for the fact that John Hall’s 1748 depiction of the funerary monument in Holy Trinity Church looks so much like the funerary monument as it appears now?
What is that “Bumping” noise?
I am an Oxfordian and this is one of the best presentations I've seen; however one question... If Devere died in 1604 and the ruff and beard style are from the late 17th century then how can this be explained? Thanks
it's an error
Hello there. The ruff is characteristic of late 16th and early 17th century. If I said what you report it was an error on my part. regards David
I think the error occurred somewhere close to 49.40
David, have you also considered comparing the Harley Miniature with the Ashbourne portrait of Edward de Vere?
Hi there, Yes I have, using the grid and dot maps. The rotation is slightly different, but the geometry is very similar. I have also superimposed the eyes and mouth of the Ashbourne onto the Harley and they fit very well. The facial outline does not fit perfectly, but the Ashbourne has been altered so much which might be the reason. I didn't include this in the video as I thought that the story stood well on its own. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 thanks, that's interesting indeed. One scholar told me the Harley Miniature was actually John Fletcher but to my eye there is only a single engraving, posthumously cut, that resembles it - the other dozen or so portraits of Fletcher show a much fuller face
@@CulinarySpy Yes, I had a look at that and I wasn't convinced. As you know any form of facial recognition has many weaknesses. It was the long life of Horatio's wife which is for me points to it being genuine. regards David
Very interesting, and I would say there is a likeness to the earlier portrait of de Vere...if it is he, this must have been painted shortly before his death. One correction: The ruff is not in the styles of "the late 17th early - 18th century", when nobody wore ruffs any more...but late 16th - early 17th century....bit of a slip up there!
Hello Duncan, Thanks for your comment. Yes my error, sorry. It's a product of moving back and forth between the centuries I'm afraid. I promise to be more careful in the future. regards David
Conclusions point 5. I assume you mean late 16th or early 17th centuries?
Thank you : )
Hi there, You seem to have been busy. Thanks for your support. regards David
Though wait, de vere was both...
There is a wart. You might not like where it is, but my goodness, it's there. Why don't you claim to see it? You surely must?
We many never know
I think person standing with left foot and hand raised denotes a mason - taking the the left hand path...
Hello Paul, Thanks for your comment. Yes he certainly was! regards David
Errr NO, its the face of Edward De Vere! Shakespeare is a pseudonym that he used to publish his plays and sonnets!
Yes I know, but that is what it says on the back. Regards David
Umm he was bald on top..
Love yur documentaries even if I disagree you def give food for thought
Thanks Kim, That's the whole idea! regards David
Mr. David, why did you delete my yesterday comment? Anyway my studies do show that the sitter in the Sanders painting is the same person as the sitter in the Harley miniature and the Vertue engraving! The De Vere family members pictures have noting related to those images.
Hello there. No I haven't received it. Can I ask you to repost it please, then I can comment. regards David
Hi David,
This video does bring the final answer to your question!
ua-cam.com/video/eR3rYY0UH0M/v-deo.html
Hi Again, I have just watched your video. Very interesting. The Vertue engraving was taken directly from the Harley miniature, so they are indeed the same individual. You comparison with the Sanders painting does show great similarity. I would be interesting to hear about your technique. As you know I use a very simple grid and dot plan to compare faces and will do this and see how it looks. regards David
Unfortunately the author of this piece has failed to reveal his identity despite being asked, which in my humble opinion makes this contribution meaningless. His reply to someone who asked was “ Don’t be derogatory “.
the only portrait of Shakespeare is the Chandos painting
I think that the Chandos portrait may be of William Shakspere from Stratford but of course he ws not Shakespeare Regards. David
David, was an earing then, the sign of a seafaring gentleman. Rather than writer?
Hello Margaret, wearing earrings was common among men in England in the 16th century, particularly among the men in the Royal court. Edward de Vere's sea ventures were limited. He took a very small part in the Armada battle. So I don't think the earring tells us anything special. kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 thank you David for taking the time to reply, I appreciate it. Also I look forward to your next instalment.
You don't list any credentials re your expertise as a Shakespeare expert so I don't listen to UA-cam videos posted by hobbyist. I am a huge fan of this writer, poet, & playwright; however, the playwright and Shakspeare the wool dealer are two different people. I believe that the 17th Earl of Oxford was the playwright & his class barred him from using his own name. There are no paintings of the broker of numerous plays, who is also the frequent plaintiff in lawsuits, and couldn't sign his name. I refer you all to Alexander Waugh's UA-cam Channel as he has done a prodigious amount of research re this question as a good starting point.
Please don't be derogatory. If you do not wish to view the video that's fine by me. If you haven't watched it then keep your prejudice to yourself.
@@davidshakespeare1767 Sadly an unworthy reply because I can't find anything about you on Mr Google. A clarification would be great. I looked at the images of your name and some were quite horrific. 😀😀
The one thing A W has not done is look at the WRITING. Much exciting research has been done showing that many plays of that period by companies who were of course composing on the hoof ready for next month’s performance with playgoers itching for a new play were collaborations. There is nothing in the extant writings of Oxford to show that he was either ( a ) one of these collaborators or ( b ) that he was a lyrical poet.
The best writing comes from Shakespeare and of course he plagiarised, or if you like, improved on others ! Take this example. Plutarch was translated into English in 1579. This is what he said of Cleopatra.:
“ Her barge the poop whereof was of gold, the sails of purple, and the oars of silver which kept stroke in rowing after the sound of flutes, howboys, citherns, viols. “
Shakespeare turns this into poetry.
“ The barge she sat in like a burnished throne, burn’d on the water;
The poop was beaten gold;
Purple the sails and so perfumed that the winds were lovesick with them;
The oars were silver which to the tune of floats kept stroke, and made the water which they beat to flow faster as amorous of their strokes. “
That is genius. Search Oxford all you may, but you will find it wanting.😀
@@davidshakespeare1767 Time has gone by. Is there any chance of you revealing your identity because without that it makes your contribution meaningless I sadly have to say.