OMG, this was brilliant, thank you!!! I'm so glad I just stumbled upon your channel. I've been following the work of the Oxford Fellowship for some years, and I think you have much to contribute to this body of scholarship. I for one would love to see you delve more deeply into any and all these topics. Cheers!
Agreed, the numerical cyphers are not relevant. Dee was distant. Jonson was playing both sides - all sides really - and also had a deep sense of gratitude toward his mentor. Jonson even tried his hand at tragedy, and de Vere was appreciative of the effort, but we all know tragedy was not Ben's dramaturgy. He was street wise, cunning and funny, as Phoebe has recounted. What Jonson did achieve that concerns those of us who know de Vere as Shakespeare was to posthumously secure de Vere's legacy through curation of the First Folio, and Ben left breadcrumbs in Trinity Church that lead to Poet's Corner in Westminster.
Bravo! Amazing work, Phoebe! Now I gotta watch and listen all over again, and again... You have managed to compress so much material, along with your own valuable insights -- Congratulations and thanks!
Phoebe: best casting director. Laying motives front and center, brilliant strategist. Thank you a million times. In a different world, not a world on the brink of ending it all, Stephen Greenblatt and James Shapiro would have nowhere to hide.
so interesting, amazing work, thank you. my guess is that only Royalty could erase him and only Royalty would consider erasing someone who was incredibly close to it and intimate with its secrets. Would love to hear more about his relationship with Elizabeth I..... (Ogburn's classical book was my introduction to the whole subject and changed everything!)
Astonishing what you did in 45min. It even teased a cryptographic thrust. I fully heard Roz Barber’s (SOF NOLA Convention) advice to Oxfordians - the “keep the anagrams to yourselves” part which I think this piece adhered to. (It did do a good century’s worth of damage to Baconians.) But, there is something pretty luscious about the more esoteric aspects of SAQ material. It’s a tough call. For me it took the consideration of some brilliant commentary (Stritmatter, Waugh, etc.) to learn that (Duh!) Elizabethans wrote differently than you and I do. They lived under drastically different conditions. Thought differently. Were endangered by different elements. That’s the foundation. Add to this a consideration of long chilly early modern winters, genteel idleness, the dearth of (affordable) reading material and the prospect of making oneself privy to all sorts of entre nous material, and I see the ‘value added’ aspect of Jonson, de Vere, et. al. All this however does not mean it needs to be shared with every Tom/Dick/Mary that I meet. That would be as Roz indicated, “leading with the chin”. I look forward to the day when these will be elements of the debate of what constitutes ‘second year’ or ‘third year’ material in the Earl of Oxford MFA program.
Pausing half way through just to say how much I love it so far. The target here and the amount of material you tackle is just right for this moment. Between Waugh and Prechtor there lies a gap and I believe you correctly identify Honest Ben as the piece to concentrate upon to make sense of where the evidence from Waugh and Prechtor has left things. The energy and effort to communicate that is evident in your presentation is worth admiring on its own. The fact that I think you’re right in the money makes it even better, in my eyes, but I hope this video finds an audience among the Shax-skeptic-curious. It deserves to!
This is wonderful feedback! Thank you so much for articulating all of this- threading the needle between the different schools of thought in Oxfordianism was 100% my goal :)
Excellent work Phoebe! You ask for suggestions. I wonder if you have thought about doing a program on de Vere's contribution to English Renaissance music? The English madrigalists (influenced by the Italian Luca Marenzio...active about the time Oxford was in Venice) begin to appear in the 1590s. Hank Whittemore in his book "100 Reasons Shake-speare was the Earl of Oxford" has the fascinating Reason 62 which shows Oxford's patronage of composers and musicians like Byrd, Farmer and perhaps (I would add) Byrd's pupil Thomas Morley. Was deVere composing some of this music himself under pseudonyms, as with literature? We know he was very accomplished from Farmer's dedication of his madrigal cycle to Oxford, and so many musical references in plays and sonnets. Intriguing! Also song lyrics in the plays. "It was a lover and his lass" from As you Like it, penned supposedly by Shakespeare...the tune (attributed to Morley) was printed in a 1599 collection I believe. Did de Vere actually write this music as well as the words? Food for thought.
Thanks so much Duncan! Yes, De Vere was a prolific composer of music and lyrics! Oxford’s Voices has a wonderful section on this. I’m wanting to bring Bob back to discuss the allonym John Dowland in particular :)
There certainly must be a connection between William Byrd and Oxford that goes beyond the Earl of Oxford march. It's just intuition but I feel much could be learned about the authorship discussion by exploring the lyrics of his music. Does anyone have any recommended reading?
This was a great vid and pulled a lot of strands together I'd come across over the years. I've dug into tons of material on the SAQ from many perspectives and I've generally avoided wading too much into the codes but I'm curious if you've seen the documentary on Petter Amundsen's work called Seven Steps to Mercy or something like that. It's been a while but I thought it had some interesting parts on First Folio codes.
Incredible. Thank you. The one critique I would have is that can we normalize shakeapearian readings in OP? Victorian accents take away from the danger inherent during that time.
20:10 - do we know when the monument was constructed with BJ’s language? Did he write the dedication FOR the monument, or did he write it as a dedication to WS and the language was later adopted for the monument? Is there any relevance in the spelling on the monument as “Shakspeare” given the author is always identified on the actual works as “Shakespeare” or “Shake-Spear(e)”?
Somebody -- perhaps Robert Prechter -- ought to make a reading list of all the works from the Elizabethan & Jacobean eras, placing them in the best order possible to show how the writing of each particular work led to a 'response' with some other work (as in the 'WESTWARD HOE' and 'EASTWARD HOE' references cited in this excellent video), pointing out Who said What When, and Why they said it when they did. This has been done, to a certain degree, with the 'Martin Marprelate' pamphlet war, by Elizabeth Appleton in her book, but we really need one covering the ENTIRE corpus of literature written during the reigns of Elizabeth and James.
I like this line of thought. There is a chronology to this story that is often ignored and I think people who are new to these considerations often end up stumbling on apparent contradictions that go away when you realize the order of events.
An excellent 'synopsis' embracing years of endeavour! Might I suggest you check out the 'Bridal Song' which features in the later play by John Fletcher (Two Noble Kinsmen), the second stanza of which opens with: 'Primrose, first-born child of Ver'. What follows could reasonably be interpreted as a series of botanical allusions to the 'Tudor Prince' theory. Oxlips, for instance, do not grow in 'cradles' but flower at the head of tall stems. The harebell blossom is blue-violet; not far removed in the colour spectrum from the 'Penelope' flower identifiable toward the close of 'Venus and Adonis' (the 1593 version). John Fletcher and Ben Jonson were known to each other.
Great work, as always. I knew about the Spanish match and the rumors about Southampton's parentage, of course, but i looked at them separately. Your synopsis made the penny drop in several ways - so much so that i felt a bit like an idiot for overlooking the significance. Thank you and keep it up!
Has anyone ever looked into this? (from a NASA page, of all things): "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the Danish courtiers in Shakespeare's "Hamlet" (and in Tom Stoppard's play " Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead") probably got their names from two relatives of Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe who visited England in 1592 on a diplomatic mission, Frederick Rosenkrantz, 3rd cousin of Tycho, and Knut Gyldenstierne, also a cousin." Brahe was a high nobleman, with access to the Danish court and to the queen. He was also quite the duelist, having lost his nose in an early sword-to-sword confrontation with an adversary. Was he a possible model for Hamlet?
Interesting! I know that there were diplomats named rosencrantz and guildenstern in the danish court and Cecil visited there for diplomatic biz… that’s the typical Oxfordian explanation for those names but cool stuff, thanks for sharing!
I am impressed. The case for Oxford was settled years ago, but they keep selling books and making money off the pseudo debate. Why the cover up has lingered for a very long time. Thank you for this brilliant essay.
Phoebe, in future videos, please slow down! You read/speak at a feverishly fast pace that really detracts from the substance of your presentation. I was quite rattled by the constant racing pace of the delivery.This is complicated stuff and not everyone is deeply immersed in the inummerable details of the SAQ.
My family passed along a story that all of our grandparents from long ago were great writers. It's very, very, very TRUE that our grandparents were the best writers the English Language ever knew. They were Edward Devere, Mary Sidney, Philip Sidney, and Francis Bacon. As I studied, I realized my son looks like Edward Devere, My daughter like Henry VIII's Sister, my grandmother like Mary Sidney who also is a striking resemblance to Queen Elizabeth I. My other son resembles Thomas Seymour. So, I wrote "Shakespeare's lost Purple Bloodline". They wrote as a puzzle. When the entire puzzle is revealed, the entire world will be in awe. You are doing a great job.
Thanks for pointing this out, honestly I was surprised when I watched the video that I had said that, I think it was a slip of the tongue, I love Elizabeth Friedman!
Brilliant scholarship. Well done. As someone who grew up in Australia I was at home memorizing all of the lines and acting in some of the plays in High School. My scholarship led me to mathematics, but I am delighted that you and others have rectified the history. Sorry too, to hear of Alexander’s passing. His videos were my introduction to this topic. The cryptography stuff was particularly fun. Can I humbly suggest a monitor instead of reading off pages, and to slow down a tad. So much to digest ! Just a small point in an otherwise outstanding , in-depth analysis.
As eVer, Phoebe: Truly well summarized and explained - and with the modest level of vocabulary, the nice sprinkling of pop references, and your fun to read inflections intonations and facial expressions, making it entirely accessible and understandable. As you present the facts, ma’am, just the facts, in your straightforward way, you elucidate so Very many aspects of the story - personal, political, and poetical. Brava! You blow my mind! 👏👏👏👏👏
Great stuff! Loving it. Jampacked but not opinionated. However i would argue number, or numerological significance cannot be just discounted tho i agree it is sometimes taken a little too far. Keep it coming you Millenial Speed talker!
Bring home the Bacon - nice. The Cecil’s were little douchebags - de Vere should have hired me to dispatch them. Wonderful work Miss Phoebe. You’re amazing. I’m an Oxfordian through and through. I also believe Bacon was in on this too along with Jonson and others. Do you have a website?
Cannot the prince Tudor theory be answered with DNA? I would think this would have been done already but assume there is a long process of obtaining permissions that is nothing short of intimidating, perhaps even making the venture impossible.
GREAT scholarship Phoebe! Might I suggest you get a copy of screenwriter Bruce Robinson’s book about Jack the Ripper, They All Love Jack. On a bet, Robinson set out to solve the Ripper murders-and honestly, it looks like he did. Surprise , all clues led to the FMs. They were in every layer of English society (then as now really) and happily opened their archives to Robinson. It’s absolutely full of the other f-bombs, but he’s an entertaining writer and shows how they were complicit in the official line they were unable to identify the murderer and l misdirecting those who sought to solve them. By doing so, they generated another literary genre called Ripperology, almost as lucrative as the faux Shaksper biography. Robinson shows how the people involved recognized the “work” of a brother FM and couldn’t risk arresting him because you take an oath to protect each other, under pain of, well, ya know. It’s a fascinating book. Btw, the other common pose for FMs is with the hand inside the front of the jacket aka, the Napoleon pose. Every now and then I get to use my degree in Art History lol.
Yes, Robinson is entertaining. It would require undue stamina to read 800+ pages otherwise. (Even Hank Whittemore has since recognised the advantage of relative parsimony.) However, Robinson's principal thesis is in error as he essentially contradicts his own argument (page 493 vs. 773). Like Stephen Knight before him Robinson targets Freemasonry, but does so, again like Knight, for entirely the wrong reasons. For a much more concise explanation of the role Freemasonry played in the Whitechapel Murders, may I suggest you read 'A Case of Mother's Ruin', where the international 'reach' of the brotherhood forms part of an equation that draws Pimlico together with Pennsylvania.
Your knowledge about Edward deVere creates intellectual ripples that lead me back to my university days, when I was much taken by Jacobean tragedy, Webster in particular. To explore Edward de Vere/s life & accomplishments intrigues me with the whole "generation" of creative writers in Elizabethan/Jacobean England, & particularly the relationship of "free" speech to political dictates, & the establishment fear of how "words" might turn into "actions" - particularly with the Trumpster's personally declared war on journalists as "enemies of the people." Is the chopping block next? Thank you for using your intellect to "fire up" the intellect of others!
How do we know Ben Johnson isn't a fake identity as well? Why question Shakespeare but not the clearly secretive guy? Not saying I have any pitches for who he is, just wondering aloud. Where do we draw the lines for pseudonym/front men? People like Dekker, Webster and Marston are not off the table either. Doesnt Prechter also say Dekker is an Oxford fanboy? Why is the folio dedicated to the Herbert's? What's their connection? Why not hide their names? 24:10 "there are many mysteries contained in poetry, which of purpose were written darkly, lest by profane wits it should be abused" - Philip Sidney Philip saying the quiet part out loud, there.
Thanks for watching and commenting! I think Prechter has a pretty solid methodology for determining who is real and who is fake, and makes cases for 267 "real" independent writers in addition to his 150+ "fake" writers. As I said I think that Philip's wife Susan Vere Herbert was the possessor of the manuscripts and the "face" of the First Folio, and Pembroke and Montgomery were the major voices of dissent against the Spanish Match and protecting Henry Vere's life (along with Henry Wriosthely). I think that the construction of the First Folio was crafty enough that they could have attached their names to it in order to make a bold statement, and if they had been arrested for doing so it would have only raised more awkward questions for King James's regime. And I do think that Philip Sidney was being sly and making allusions to various people at court throughout his poems... Stella/Penelope Rich is an obvious example, and Prechter argues that he was even clapping back at De Vere in certain verses. I like Sidney's verse and essays but he died quite young.
Anonymous is the movie that got me interested in this topic. It has everything to capture your imagination as De Vere is clearly the Only one who went to Italy and Scotland and other places Only a royal could go. So it's the 17th who wrote those works and is the " Soul of this age " by best accounts in America 🇺🇸.
I agree that not all codes are codes. is it possible to send you a PDF with a few things I've found that I think are legitimate? I'd really appreciate your opinion. Thanks. (The focus will be on Wriothesley being the son of Elizabeth).
Fascinating facts & interpretations. Never knew Ben Jonson was such a "dangerous" pen. Going back to his works & the life that made them possible. Many thanks!
DeVere has featured in my research also, although i like to think he was part of something larger than just "who wrote Shakespeare" Trail of the Green man, my website or youtube channel features a video regarding the authorship of the Sonnets, although its without context if taken alone. I enjoyed very much your video thanks for sharing.
Jonson was surely working for Cecil, that was the deal. You don't really believe Catesby hasn't been totally set up and Cecil knew the moment any of this lot got anywhere near St James Palace, do you ;).
Excellent presentation, Phoebe! I thoroughly enjoyed it. I would like to submit just a few points of disagreement: 1. You dismiss the evidence of Christian Hermetic numerology in the Sonnets’ dedication by saying that Dee wasn't particularly involved with De Vere. However, there is direct evidence connecting them. Dee mentions De Vere's "favourable letters" defending him against witchcraft accusations, and both were heavily involved in Frobisher’s attempts to find the northwest passage. Additionally, Waugh's strong evidence of Dee’s involvement in the Sonnets encryption deserves more consideration. 2. You distinguish between numerical codes as "fictional" and literary tricks as "factual," based on the writers involved being primarily men of classical letters. But many of these writers were also "men of numbers," including Ben Jonson (see Roger Stritmatter’s video, Witty Numbers). You also rest this distinction on the debunked Baconian codework. While caution around number codes is wise, Waugh’s work in this area is revolutionary and should not be summarily thrown out with the Baconian bathwater. 3. You dismiss distinctions between "W" and "VV" as typesetting issues, however, the fact that Ws and VVs were interchangeable does not mean they were not also manipulated with design. I suggest you compare the front matter of the first and second folios. In multiple places, where the first folio reads "William Shakespeare" (with the two Vs touching), the second folio reads, "VV Shakespeare" (with a clear space between the Vs). The fact that this occurs multiple times and that the rest of the name "William" is in each case also removed suggests this was not just a matter of random typesetting. It’s worth comparing the two folios closely, especially since Ben Jonson was involved with both. Moreover, we do have at least one instance of De Vere signing his name "Double V." I appreciate the time you put into gathering such a large amount of material together and presenting it in such a clear fashion-well done and best regards.
Thank you so much Lyle! Really appreciate this feedback. I am especially eager to dive deeper into the first and second folios as I haven’t gotten to spend much time comparing them, and am delighted that you and so many others are continuing to explore Waugh’s thrilling code work. Anyone interested should check out your fascinating UA-cam presentations ua-cam.com/video/7_b6p66N_Ss/v-deo.htmlsi=Tv_D5l1St55hw3bZ
@@joecurran2811so then. ..Southampton was oxford’s son, by QEI ? Have been trying to wrap my head around that. Something doesnt fit but I probably just don’t know enough of the history. It’s seems so unlikely to me that the queen wouldnt acknowledge a son.
@@martacarson5638 ua-cam.com/video/K6zXC0d7ldk/v-deo.htmlsi=FPKoEncT2lNyDGfH Hank Whittemore explains it quite well here. It could have undermined her position and could have led to her rebellion and arrest. It could actually have endangered the child too. It's worth noting that Edward De Vere for a lot of his life signed his name Edward VII
@@martacarson5638 But QE1's entire thing was being the "virgin queen" "married only to her country"...knowing that visible attachment to any man, in those days, would have threatened her own ascendancy as monarch.
MissD was supposedly going to open the grave. Yet Hawthorne says he was upset with her because she was not eating much at the time and would not ask him for money for food. I'm suppposed to believe an older lady who wasn't eating much at the time was going to dig up concrete floor alone?
The details are in the opening chapter of Ian Donaldson's biography of Jonson... Apparently when a grave beside Jonson's was being dug up, the workers noticed had been buried vertically, head downwards.
How would you evaluate the credibility of Alan W. Geen's exploration of John Dee's "encoding" of Shakespeare texts & the funeral inscriptions. Should I invest my time in this? This is the sincere question to benefit from your knowledge. This is the anxious explanation for the question. I get sweaty palms when I hear that the exact ratio of the Great Pyramid is to be found in various combination of words/letters/page mis-numbers. I believe the same ratio can be found in my great-grandmother's teapot, but only if you divide the Mayan calendar by the Assyrian sacred text "Ino no whati rot." As a new subscriber, am I allowed to ask questions like this? I'm a Canadian so I will say sorry in advance. Make that sorry x two ...
I hope you don’t mind some constructive criticism of your video presentation style. Your audience does not want to watch you reading from a script. You need to either learn the material and then speak to the camera in a conversational style. Or, alternatively, speak off-camera, and deliver your spoken lines as a voice-over. Also, you are speaking much too quickly. But I’m on your side. I too am an Oxfordian. I have been an Oxfordian ever since I first read Charlton Ogburn’s book “The Mysterious William Shakespeare.” Keep up the good work.
Please always make your readers aware that in 1604 no one understood Devere as we now know Shakespeare. He was a revered earl who was a fantastic writer but not the "Great Wm Shakespeare" It is difficult the for unschooled to believe that the day to day life that Devere led was not recorded and subject to the scrutiny that we now assume for modern-day famous people.
There is a lot of speculation here. A man who can be proved to have been involved in the Shakespeare “machine”(the likelihood is that several writers were involved) is John Florio. This can be proved by the text of Loves Labours Lost and its links with Giovanni Bruno who could not speak English. Florio knew and translated him. Many of the sayings of Shakespeare were recorded by Florio before Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s work could not have itbeen written without Florio. This also explains the Italian connection with so many of Shakespeare’s plays.
We stick people, especially soldiers, in St Paul's these days. Nelson, Wellington and Winston are all there. The Abbey got full up by the middle of the 19th. All 9 monuments around Shakespeare; Phillips, Drayton, Jonson, Spencer, Gray, Rowe, Gay and Goldsmith, and Prior behind, are all connected/pointing to the exact centre of the tomb by exact regular triangles. I'm trying to get some precise measurements to corroborate that claim. Alexander's 30/60/90 between Chaucer/Spencer/Shakespeare is alas bogus but he was bang on in principle. Everything I found was because he said Jonson and Drayton are looking down to him. Well Jonson will be bang on 30° and I won't know if Drayton is 17 or 18°. I thought it would be 18 but Spencer is bang on 40° and was originally erected in the same era. So we will see. The woman on Gray is Minerva and is holding an invisible vertical spear. It's bang on 30° to the centre. Rowe and Shakes are covered in 17 and 40 bearing Pythagorean triangles in all their rectangular faces. I haven't solved the large one under either of them yet but they are twinned. They were both designed and cut by Kent and Sheemaker. Charlotte is looking through her father's eyes at the exact centre along concentric 3:4:5 triangles in the vertical. There's plenty still to unpick on the Shakespeare monument itself and on the texts of all of them. Spencer in particular looks doable. The verse itself of the Sonnets constitutes an enormous number puzzle to go with the geometry and word crypts on the title and dedication. It will dwarf those first two pages.
Thank you for giving credit to Hank he deserves it when I came to this conclusion and re read the sonnets I cried and Hank was the only one online saying the fair youth was oxfords son
Alex Waugh too the man is a encyclopedia of Shakespeare thank you for showing grace to those 2 gentlemen when I got deep into the authorship and the pregnancy controversy those 2 were the only ones making sense imho my research aligns very closely with Hank and I was laughed at even by traditional oxfordians I’m glad to see the world is waking up to the truth 😊
There is no "Shakespeare authorship question" and no question about his burial. William Shakespeare was born in Stratford and is buried there. This whole conspiracy theory was invented in the middle of the nineteenth century by Americans. Sound familiar? It gained no traction in Britain or among serious Shakespeare scholars. It is still dismissed by Shakespeare scholars. As time has gone on, the original observation which kicked off this conspiracy (that some Shakespeare plays seem to have been written by more than one author) has been confirmed. It was common practice in Shakespeare's time for playwrights to work in teams, as Hollywood scriptwriters do today. Therefore it is unsurprising that evidence of this teamwork can sometimes be found in a minority of Shakespeare's plays. Anyone wishing to investigate current knowledge about other playwrights who collaborated with Shakespeare can do so: the findings are regularly published. None of them were mysterious aristocrats. That's all, folks. Nothing to see here.
On the cover of SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS, there is a blank space where the author's name should be. The name of the author is hidden in the phrase just above the blank space (the space where, again, the author's name is supposed to be!) Never Before Imprinted = "Be In Print For M. E De Vere" OR "Be In Print For M. Vere - Dee" (John Dee) OR "Be In Print For Me, De Vere" As Alexander Waugh said, 3 times is PROOF. Tres Sont Omnia Who was M. E De Vere (Mr. E(dward) De Vere OR Mystery De Vere)? Never Before Imprinted = I B M Vere - Poet, Friend According to Waugh, De Vere was code number Forty Neuer Before Imprinted = En Peer Number Fortie - I.D. (John Dee) Five solutions, 3 different formats. Hard to call it a coincidence.
Comment #2 I still don't buy the theory that the 18th century Freemasons would knowingly promote Shakper unless, and this is a point you did not make, they wanted the great writer to be a bumpkin instead of an aristocrat. Remember that the mid to late 1700's resulted in the triumph of the common man via the American and French Revolutions. Perhaps they thought that making the writer an aristocrat would somehow sully his reputation. In any event, I thank you for your presentation. You've enabled me to think many thoughts.
What is the significance of the pseudonym Shakespeare? Did De Vere choose it and if not who did? Why choose a name that's very close to that of a shady illiterate businessman who was an occasional jobbing actor and happened to know Heminges and Condell? Did De Vere want his plays and sonnets attributed to Shakspere and if so, why?
I’d recommend reading Oxford’s Voices by Robert Prechter, there’s a free excerpt on his website that is his overview of the relationship between de Vere and the Stratford man
To me, the elite English didn't and don't want a person from the lower-class being able to write better than they could ever write. The English elites are really that petty.
I do not know of evidence for or against Hemings and Condell's literacy. Many actors at the time were functionally illiterate, in which case they would memorize their parts by having them read aloud to them.
@@lylecolombo4442 the actors were all given their own parts, written down, to learn with the line before and line after theirs as prompts. This is why to this day we talk of actors having parts. Of course they were literate. You imagine they had time to sit around learning every part by rote with the number of plays they put on? How? By reciting after the author? There were also changes to the scripts and sections cut, censored or added. It's ridiculous to say they weren't literate.
@joecurran2811 ah right, must be so mustn't it, or you wouldn't need Oxford to write the plays. There is no evidence, zilch, that Oxford wrote the plays and plenty that Shakespeare did. Including the fact that everyone acknowledged Shakespeare as the author in his lifetime. No one said, hang on, that actor fellow can't have written them, actors can't write 🙄
Great video but I have some disagreements. 1) Dark Lady was definitely not QE1. It was Penelope Devereux, see how S*x and b@stardry gave birth to William Shakespeare from the Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable. 2) I wouldn't be completely disregard what Waugh diecovered with John Dee. I wouldn't introduce the SAQ through that - people find it offputting. And I know post-Stratfordians have been burnt with this in the past with regard to Bacon. But I wouldn't say that what Whittrmore and Waugh discovered are mutually exclusive.
Why did Johnsom have to burn the plays though? Couldn't he have simply buried them or sent them out of country? Seems a bit wasteful from a dedicated servant.
I believe that "Shakespeare" was not deVere, but Walter Raughley. DeVere may written 'first drafts" of several of "Shakespeare's" works, which were later extensively revised by Raleigh. This would explain why Raleigh began his life at court, as a "follower" of DeVere, but they later became bitter enemies. At some point, DeVere wrote to Raleigh threatening to kill him, and/or demanding a duel. If Raleigh, according to my thesis, "stole" some plays originally written by deVere, and extensively revised and improved them, that would make perfect sense. Phoebe, is there some address, whether web or snail, where I could write you and present my evidence? I am too old and sick to write a n article for publication on this subject. I would be happy though if you would follow up this hint from me, and if you were to discover that I am right, I will cede all of the credit to you. Best regards, JCL.
if you're referring to the b-roll, its sometimes meant more to be a visually stimulating addition to phoebe speaking more than it's meant to be read like slides in a powerpoint presentation. if you'd like to absorb it as such, feel free to pause to read.
According to "orthodox" traditional Shakespearians, the name of the "Fair Youth" to whom "Shakespeare addressed most of the snnets, was Henry Wriousley (pronounced "Risley") not Henry Rosalie" as you identify him.
The name was spelled 'Wriothesley', not 'Wriousley'. Unless someone can find a poem from that period which rhymes the name with a word such as 'grisly', we'll probably never know EXACTLY how his contemporaries actually pronounced it. 'ROZE'-lee' could very well be how it was pronounced, or even 'ROTH-slee'. If the name 'Derby' could be pronounced 'DARR-bee', and 'Berkeley' pronounced 'BARK-lee', then who nowadays can be sure of how 'Wriothesley' was pronounced. The name 'WR-IOTH-ESLEY' is encoded in 3 chunks in the Sonnets Dedication text, and the word 'Rose' is used metaphorically throughout the Sonnets, especially in the first 17. Connecting this 'Fair Youth' with a metaphorical 'Rose' might well be due, in part, to a then-perceived connection through rhyme of the name's first syllable, if indeed it was pronounced 'ROZE-lee', the word 'Rose' being pronounced 'ROZE'.
This is all great stuff. But the visuals flash past too fast to register properly, and simply distract from your (also too fast) verbals. This is a pity. Get it down in either slower, or book form, and I'm in.
I found Phoebe much easier to follow and the information to comprehend by listening, not watching. In any case it was a great presentation. Oxford's Voices is on my list.
Amazing work Phoebe, as always. And, on a much sadder note, I am truly sorry to hear of Alexander Waugh's passing.
I didn’t know Alexander had passed away - May perpetual light shine upon him, and may he Rest In Peace. 🙏
😭 I knew he was battling cancer 😔 I did not know he passed I’m heartbroken 💔 Waugh deserves so much credit in this controversy a true legend….
OMG, this was brilliant, thank you!!! I'm so glad I just stumbled upon your channel. I've been following the work of the Oxford Fellowship for some years, and I think you have much to contribute to this body of scholarship. I for one would love to see you delve more deeply into any and all these topics. Cheers!
:)
Wow, I love how you’ve pulled it all together. Fantastic work
Thanks so much!❤
Agreed, the numerical cyphers are not relevant. Dee was distant. Jonson was playing both sides - all sides really - and also had a deep sense of gratitude toward his mentor. Jonson even tried his hand at tragedy, and de Vere was appreciative of the effort, but we all know tragedy was not Ben's dramaturgy. He was street wise, cunning and funny, as Phoebe has recounted. What Jonson did achieve that concerns those of us who know de Vere as Shakespeare was to posthumously secure de Vere's legacy through curation of the First Folio, and Ben left breadcrumbs in Trinity Church that lead to Poet's Corner in Westminster.
Bravo!
Amazing work, Phoebe! Now I gotta watch and listen all over again, and again... You have managed to compress so much material, along with your own valuable insights -- Congratulations and thanks!
Wow, thank you! So so honored 🙏🏻❤️🙏🏻
somewhow missed this upload, what a treat!
Tysm!
Wonderful video! Brilliant synthesis of scholarship, and very entertainingly delivered. As close to a "unitary theory" of the SAQ as I've ever seen.
Holy cow, thank you Michael, means so much coming from you 🙏🏻
Phoebe: best casting director. Laying motives front and center, brilliant strategist. Thank you a million times.
In a different world, not a world on the brink of ending it all, Stephen Greenblatt and James Shapiro would have nowhere to hide.
@@stevenyafet amazing comment thank you!
What a fantastic summary of so much information! Amazing job!
Thanks so much!
Sorry to hear about Alexander! Really nice presentation. We need this complex information to be clearly presented like you are doing!
Thanks so much
so interesting, amazing work, thank you. my guess is that only Royalty could erase him and only Royalty would consider erasing someone who was incredibly close to it and intimate with its secrets. Would love to hear more about his relationship with Elizabeth I..... (Ogburn's classical book was my introduction to the whole subject and changed everything!)
cool point, thanks for watching! :) feel free to check out my video with bob prechter about de Vere's relationship with Elizabeth :)
Astonishing what you did in 45min. It even teased a cryptographic thrust.
I fully heard Roz Barber’s (SOF NOLA Convention) advice to Oxfordians - the “keep the anagrams to yourselves” part which I think this piece adhered to. (It did do a good century’s worth of damage to Baconians.) But, there is something pretty luscious about the more esoteric aspects of SAQ material. It’s a tough call.
For me it took the consideration of some brilliant commentary (Stritmatter, Waugh, etc.) to learn that (Duh!) Elizabethans wrote differently than you and I do. They lived under drastically different conditions. Thought differently. Were endangered by different elements. That’s the foundation. Add to this a consideration of long chilly early modern winters, genteel idleness, the dearth of (affordable) reading material and the prospect of making oneself privy to all sorts of entre nous material, and I see the ‘value added’ aspect of Jonson, de Vere, et. al.
All this however does not mean it needs to be shared with every Tom/Dick/Mary that I meet. That would be as Roz indicated, “leading with the chin”. I look forward to the day when these will be elements of the debate of what constitutes ‘second year’ or ‘third year’ material in the Earl of Oxford MFA program.
Awesome work. Well done.
Thank you so much! 🙏
This was the rabbit hole I needed today-answered so many questions I had. Thank you!
Wonderful!
Thank you Phoebe. There were moments in this that just brought me to tears over the way this played out
This really warms my heart, thank you so much for watching ❤
I enjoyed this very much...keep up the factual, good work...
Thanks so much!!
Love the videos Phoebe! Thanks for all you do
I love your dedication to this❤❤❤
Pausing half way through just to say how much I love it so far.
The target here and the amount of material you tackle is just right for this moment. Between Waugh and Prechtor there lies a gap and I believe you correctly identify Honest Ben as the piece to concentrate upon to make sense of where the evidence from Waugh and Prechtor has left things.
The energy and effort to communicate that is evident in your presentation is worth admiring on its own. The fact that I think you’re right in the money makes it even better, in my eyes, but I hope this video finds an audience among the Shax-skeptic-curious. It deserves to!
This is wonderful feedback! Thank you so much for articulating all of this- threading the needle between the different schools of thought in Oxfordianism was 100% my goal :)
Excellent work Phoebe! You ask for suggestions. I wonder if you have thought about doing a program on de Vere's contribution to English Renaissance music? The English madrigalists (influenced by the Italian Luca Marenzio...active about the time Oxford was in Venice) begin to appear in the 1590s. Hank Whittemore in his book "100 Reasons Shake-speare was the Earl of Oxford" has the fascinating Reason 62 which shows Oxford's patronage of composers and musicians like Byrd, Farmer and perhaps (I would add) Byrd's pupil Thomas Morley. Was deVere composing some of this music himself under pseudonyms, as with literature? We know he was very accomplished from Farmer's dedication of his madrigal cycle to Oxford, and so many musical references in plays and sonnets. Intriguing! Also song lyrics in the plays. "It was a lover and his lass" from As you Like it, penned supposedly by Shakespeare...the tune (attributed to Morley) was printed in a 1599 collection I believe. Did de Vere actually write this music as well as the words? Food for thought.
Thanks so much Duncan! Yes, De Vere was a prolific composer of music and lyrics! Oxford’s Voices has a wonderful section on this. I’m wanting to bring Bob back to discuss the allonym John Dowland in particular :)
There certainly must be a connection between William Byrd and Oxford that goes beyond the Earl of Oxford march. It's just intuition but I feel much could be learned about the authorship discussion by exploring the lyrics of his music. Does anyone have any recommended reading?
"Semper Dowland semper dolens" Dowland's motto. Very Hamlet-like!
@@joekostka1298Oxford’s voices by Robert Prechter! 🎉 thanks for the comment!
This was a great vid and pulled a lot of strands together I'd come across over the years.
I've dug into tons of material on the SAQ from many perspectives and I've generally avoided wading too much into the codes but I'm curious if you've seen the documentary on Petter Amundsen's work called Seven Steps to Mercy or something like that. It's been a while but I thought it had some interesting parts on First Folio codes.
Yes ive seen it thanks for watching!
Incredible. Thank you. The one critique I would have is that can we normalize shakeapearian readings in OP? Victorian accents take away from the danger inherent during that time.
Thank you! Your presentation is just astounding.
Thanks so much!! ❤️
20:10 - do we know when the monument was constructed with BJ’s language? Did he write the dedication FOR the monument, or did he write it as a dedication to WS and the language was later adopted for the monument?
Is there any relevance in the spelling on the monument as “Shakspeare” given the author is always identified on the actual works as “Shakespeare” or “Shake-Spear(e)”?
Good qs. Unsure
"Buckle Up!" Yay for Phoebe de Vere.
Yay! :)
Somebody -- perhaps Robert Prechter -- ought to make a reading list of all the works from the Elizabethan & Jacobean eras, placing them in the best order possible to show how the writing of each particular work led to a 'response' with some other work (as in the 'WESTWARD HOE' and 'EASTWARD HOE' references cited in this excellent video), pointing out Who said What When, and Why they said it when they did. This has been done, to a certain degree, with the 'Martin Marprelate' pamphlet war, by Elizabeth Appleton in her book, but we really need one covering the ENTIRE corpus of literature written during the reigns of Elizabeth and James.
I like this line of thought.
There is a chronology to this story that is often ignored and I think people who are new to these considerations often end up stumbling on apparent contradictions that go away when you realize the order of events.
An excellent 'synopsis' embracing years of endeavour! Might I suggest you check out the 'Bridal Song' which features in the later play by John Fletcher (Two Noble Kinsmen), the second stanza of which opens with: 'Primrose, first-born child of Ver'. What follows could reasonably be interpreted as a series of botanical allusions to the 'Tudor Prince' theory. Oxlips, for instance, do not grow in 'cradles' but flower at the head of tall stems. The harebell blossom is blue-violet; not far removed in the colour spectrum from the 'Penelope' flower identifiable toward the close of 'Venus and Adonis' (the 1593 version). John Fletcher and Ben Jonson were known to each other.
Great work, as always. I knew about the Spanish match and the rumors about Southampton's parentage, of course, but i looked at them separately. Your synopsis made the penny drop in several ways - so much so that i felt a bit like an idiot for overlooking the significance. Thank you and keep it up!
Thanks so much Tony!
Has anyone ever looked into this? (from a NASA page, of all things): "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the Danish courtiers in Shakespeare's "Hamlet" (and in Tom Stoppard's play " Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead") probably got their names from two relatives of Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe who visited England in 1592 on a diplomatic mission, Frederick Rosenkrantz, 3rd cousin of Tycho, and Knut Gyldenstierne, also a cousin." Brahe was a high nobleman, with access to the Danish court and to the queen. He was also quite the duelist, having lost his nose in an early sword-to-sword confrontation with an adversary. Was he a possible model for Hamlet?
Interesting! I know that there were diplomats named rosencrantz and guildenstern in the danish court and Cecil visited there for diplomatic biz… that’s the typical Oxfordian explanation for those names but cool stuff, thanks for sharing!
I am impressed. The case for Oxford was settled years ago, but they keep selling books and making money off the pseudo debate. Why the cover up has lingered for a very long time. Thank you for this brilliant essay.
Wow thank you so much for this nice comment!! 💕
Phoebe, in future videos, please slow down! You read/speak at a feverishly fast pace that really detracts from the substance of your presentation. I was quite rattled by the constant racing pace of the delivery.This is complicated stuff and not everyone is deeply immersed in the inummerable details of the SAQ.
I'm inclined to agree.
My family passed along a story that all of our grandparents from long ago were great writers. It's very, very, very TRUE that our grandparents were the best writers the English Language ever knew. They were Edward Devere, Mary Sidney, Philip Sidney, and Francis Bacon. As I studied, I realized my son looks like Edward Devere, My daughter like Henry VIII's Sister, my grandmother like Mary Sidney who also is a striking resemblance to Queen Elizabeth I. My other son resembles Thomas Seymour.
So, I wrote "Shakespeare's lost Purple Bloodline". They wrote as a puzzle. When the entire puzzle is revealed, the entire world will be in awe.
You are doing a great job.
What?! Let us in on this amazing statement. Pictures, documented bloodlines…
Excellent but one error. She refers to the modern day code breakers as ‘the men’ when chief among them is Elizabeth Friedman, a woman.
Thanks for pointing this out, honestly I was surprised when I watched the video that I had said that, I think it was a slip of the tongue, I love Elizabeth Friedman!
Brilliant scholarship. Well done. As someone who grew up in Australia I was at home memorizing all of the lines and acting in some of the plays in High School. My scholarship led me to mathematics, but I am delighted that you and others have rectified the history. Sorry too, to hear of Alexander’s passing. His videos were my introduction to this topic. The cryptography stuff was particularly fun. Can I humbly suggest a monitor instead of reading off pages, and to slow down a tad. So much to digest ! Just a small point in an otherwise outstanding , in-depth analysis.
Well done, Phoebe - and thank you.
As eVer, Phoebe: Truly well summarized and explained - and with the modest level of vocabulary, the nice sprinkling of pop references, and your fun to read inflections intonations and facial expressions, making it entirely accessible and understandable. As you present the facts, ma’am, just the facts, in your straightforward way, you elucidate so Very many aspects of the story - personal, political, and poetical. Brava! You blow my mind! 👏👏👏👏👏
Thanks so much, I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Just discovered your channel today. Lots to explore -- thanks!
Welcome!
Great stuff! Loving it. Jampacked but not opinionated. However i would argue number, or numerological significance cannot be just discounted tho i agree it is sometimes taken a little too far. Keep it coming you Millenial Speed talker!
"Millennial Speed talker" Gotta agree!
Bring home the Bacon - nice.
The Cecil’s were little douchebags - de Vere should have hired me to dispatch them.
Wonderful work Miss Phoebe. You’re amazing. I’m an Oxfordian through and through. I also believe Bacon was in on this too along with Jonson and others.
Do you have a website?
Cannot the prince Tudor theory be answered with DNA? I would think this would have been done already but assume there is a long process of obtaining permissions that is nothing short of intimidating, perhaps even making the venture impossible.
GREAT scholarship Phoebe!
Might I suggest you get a copy of screenwriter Bruce Robinson’s book about Jack the Ripper, They All Love Jack. On a bet, Robinson set out to solve the Ripper murders-and honestly, it looks like he did. Surprise , all clues led to the FMs. They were in every layer of English society (then as now really) and happily opened their archives to Robinson. It’s absolutely full of the other f-bombs, but he’s an entertaining writer and shows how they were complicit in the official line they were unable to identify the murderer and l misdirecting those who sought to solve them. By doing so, they generated another literary genre called Ripperology, almost as lucrative as the faux Shaksper biography.
Robinson shows how the people involved recognized the “work” of a brother FM and couldn’t risk arresting him because you take an oath to protect each other, under pain of, well, ya know.
It’s a fascinating book.
Btw, the other common pose for FMs is with the hand inside the front of the jacket aka, the Napoleon pose. Every now and then I get to use my degree in Art History lol.
Sounds fascinating! Thanks so much for the recommendation.
Yes, Robinson is entertaining. It would require undue stamina to read 800+ pages otherwise. (Even Hank Whittemore has since recognised the advantage of relative parsimony.) However, Robinson's principal thesis is in error as he essentially contradicts his own argument (page 493 vs. 773). Like Stephen Knight before him Robinson targets Freemasonry, but does so, again like Knight, for entirely the wrong reasons. For a much more concise explanation of the role Freemasonry played in the Whitechapel Murders, may I suggest you read 'A Case of Mother's Ruin', where the international 'reach' of the brotherhood forms part of an equation that draws Pimlico together with Pennsylvania.
FMs = Freemasons am I correct?
Absolutely fantastic Phoebe! 👏 🌟
Thank you!! 😊
This is the product of so much hard work thank you!
Thanks so much for watching! 🥰
This is everything I wanted AND MORE!! Bravo Phoebe, BRAVO!!!🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
🥰
Great job, young lady! Thumbs up 👍
Your knowledge about Edward deVere creates intellectual ripples that lead me back to my university days, when I was much taken by Jacobean tragedy, Webster in particular. To explore Edward de Vere/s life & accomplishments intrigues me with the whole "generation" of creative writers in Elizabethan/Jacobean England, & particularly the relationship of "free" speech to political dictates, & the establishment fear of how "words" might turn into "actions" - particularly with the Trumpster's personally declared war on journalists as "enemies of the people." Is the chopping block next? Thank you for using your intellect to "fire up" the intellect of others!
Thanks!
How do we know Ben Johnson isn't a fake identity as well? Why question Shakespeare but not the clearly secretive guy?
Not saying I have any pitches for who he is, just wondering aloud. Where do we draw the lines for pseudonym/front men? People like Dekker, Webster and Marston are not off the table either.
Doesnt Prechter also say Dekker is an Oxford fanboy?
Why is the folio dedicated to the Herbert's? What's their connection? Why not hide their names?
24:10 "there are many mysteries contained in poetry, which of purpose were written darkly, lest by profane wits it should be abused" - Philip Sidney
Philip saying the quiet part out loud, there.
Thanks for watching and commenting! I think Prechter has a pretty solid methodology for determining who is real and who is fake, and makes cases for 267 "real" independent writers in addition to his 150+ "fake" writers. As I said I think that Philip's wife Susan Vere Herbert was the possessor of the manuscripts and the "face" of the First Folio, and Pembroke and Montgomery were the major voices of dissent against the Spanish Match and protecting Henry Vere's life (along with Henry Wriosthely). I think that the construction of the First Folio was crafty enough that they could have attached their names to it in order to make a bold statement, and if they had been arrested for doing so it would have only raised more awkward questions for King James's regime.
And I do think that Philip Sidney was being sly and making allusions to various people at court throughout his poems... Stella/Penelope Rich is an obvious example, and Prechter argues that he was even clapping back at De Vere in certain verses. I like Sidney's verse and essays but he died quite young.
The De Vere Bible in the Folger is interesting.
So true!
@@phoebe_devere I think it deserves more attention. I would love to see you make a video about it.
Anonymous is the movie that got me interested in this topic. It has everything to capture your imagination as De Vere is clearly the Only one who went to Italy and Scotland and other places Only a royal could go. So it's the 17th who wrote those works and is the " Soul of this age " by best accounts in America 🇺🇸.
I agree that not all codes are codes. is it possible to send you a PDF with a few things I've found that I think are legitimate? I'd really appreciate your opinion. Thanks.
(The focus will be on Wriothesley being the son of Elizabeth).
John im a big fan and it’s great to hear from you! Please do share :)
@@phoebe_devere Oh, wow. Thank you! I'll put the PDF together as quickly as I can, but where should I email it?
phoebenir @ gmail
Fascinating facts & interpretations. Never knew Ben Jonson was such a "dangerous" pen. Going back to his works & the life that made them possible. Many thanks!
thanks Randall! hope you will share what you uncover :)
DeVere has featured in my research also, although i like to think he was part of something larger than just "who wrote Shakespeare" Trail of the Green man, my website or youtube channel features a video regarding the authorship of the Sonnets, although its without context if taken alone. I enjoyed very much your video thanks for sharing.
Jonson was surely working for Cecil, that was the deal. You don't really believe Catesby hasn't been totally set up and Cecil knew the moment any of this lot got anywhere near St James Palace, do you ;).
Many thrusts of inquiry drawn successfully together. Wow! 👍
Thanks!!
brilliant
Great explanation joining up the Jonson dots.
Wonderful work, many thanks Phoebe.
Thank you!
Excellent presentation, Phoebe! I thoroughly enjoyed it. I would like to submit just a few points of disagreement:
1. You dismiss the evidence of Christian Hermetic numerology in the Sonnets’ dedication by saying that Dee wasn't particularly involved with De Vere. However, there is direct evidence connecting them. Dee mentions De Vere's "favourable letters" defending him against witchcraft accusations, and both were heavily involved in Frobisher’s attempts to find the northwest passage. Additionally, Waugh's strong evidence of Dee’s involvement in the Sonnets encryption deserves more consideration.
2. You distinguish between numerical codes as "fictional" and literary tricks as "factual," based on the writers involved being primarily men of classical letters. But many of these writers were also "men of numbers," including Ben Jonson (see Roger Stritmatter’s video, Witty Numbers). You also rest this distinction on the debunked Baconian codework. While caution around number codes is wise, Waugh’s work in this area is revolutionary and should not be summarily thrown out with the Baconian bathwater.
3. You dismiss distinctions between "W" and "VV" as typesetting issues, however, the fact that Ws and VVs were interchangeable does not mean they were not also manipulated with design. I suggest you compare the front matter of the first and second folios. In multiple places, where the first folio reads "William Shakespeare" (with the two Vs touching), the second folio reads, "VV Shakespeare" (with a clear space between the Vs). The fact that this occurs multiple times and that the rest of the name "William" is in each case also removed suggests this was not just a matter of random typesetting. It’s worth comparing the two folios closely, especially since Ben Jonson was involved with both. Moreover, we do have at least one instance of De Vere signing his name "Double V."
I appreciate the time you put into gathering such a large amount of material together and presenting it in such a clear fashion-well done and best regards.
Thank you so much Lyle! Really appreciate this feedback. I am especially eager to dive deeper into the first and second folios as I haven’t gotten to spend much time comparing them, and am delighted that you and so many others are continuing to explore Waugh’s thrilling code work. Anyone interested should check out your fascinating UA-cam presentations ua-cam.com/video/7_b6p66N_Ss/v-deo.htmlsi=Tv_D5l1St55hw3bZ
cracking vid, thanks...
Great Work..hopefully it will outlast the current Shakespeare 'academics'..
Phoebe, please explain what Oxford was sacrificing in order to get southhampton out of prison.
Claims on the monarchical line, either through him or more likely his son Southampton. But that's a whole other topic.
@@joecurran2811so then. ..Southampton was oxford’s son, by QEI ? Have been trying to wrap my head around that. Something doesnt fit but I probably just don’t know enough of the history. It’s seems so unlikely to me that the queen wouldnt acknowledge a son.
@@martacarson5638 ua-cam.com/video/K6zXC0d7ldk/v-deo.htmlsi=FPKoEncT2lNyDGfH Hank Whittemore explains it quite well here. It could have undermined her position and could have led to her rebellion and arrest. It could actually have endangered the child too.
It's worth noting that Edward De Vere for a lot of his life signed his name Edward VII
@@martacarson5638 But QE1's entire thing was being the "virgin queen" "married only to her country"...knowing that visible attachment to any man, in those days, would have threatened her own ascendancy as monarch.
De Vere lived near me. There is an amazing pyramid tomb in the local graveyard of St.Johns churchI that I wish I could show here.
Wow!
When are you visiting ?
MissD was supposedly going to open the grave. Yet Hawthorne says he was upset with her because she was not eating much at the time and would not ask him for money for food. I'm suppposed to believe an older lady who wasn't eating much at the time was going to dig up concrete floor alone?
Great work! Please slow down a bit - it's a lot to absorb!
Ben Jonson is in the North Aisle of the Nave in Westminster Abbey. I had never heard he was buried upside down, upright, yes.
The details are in the opening chapter of Ian Donaldson's biography of Jonson... Apparently when a grave beside Jonson's was being dug up, the workers noticed had been buried vertically, head downwards.
@@AlacratesStrange.
Excellent discussion.
Whoa this part of the internet exists? What else is YT hiding from me???
How would you evaluate the credibility of Alan W. Geen's exploration of John Dee's "encoding" of Shakespeare texts & the funeral inscriptions. Should I invest my time in this? This is the sincere question to benefit from your knowledge.
This is the anxious explanation for the question.
I get sweaty palms when I hear that the exact ratio of the Great Pyramid is to be found in various combination of words/letters/page mis-numbers. I believe the same ratio can be found in my great-grandmother's teapot, but only if you divide the Mayan calendar by the Assyrian sacred text "Ino no whati rot." As a new subscriber, am I allowed to ask questions like this? I'm a Canadian so I will say sorry in advance. Make that sorry x two ...
Alan is very smart and a tremendous showman but I haven’t shared his conclusions when examining the same sources
@@phoebe_devere Appreciated!
I hope you don’t mind some constructive criticism of your video presentation style. Your audience does not want to watch you reading from a script. You need to either learn the material and then speak to the camera in a conversational style. Or, alternatively, speak off-camera, and deliver your spoken lines as a voice-over. Also, you are speaking much too quickly. But I’m on your side. I too am an Oxfordian. I have been an Oxfordian ever since I first read Charlton Ogburn’s book “The Mysterious William Shakespeare.” Keep up the good work.
Please always make your readers aware that in 1604 no one understood Devere as we now know Shakespeare. He was a revered earl who was a fantastic writer but not the "Great Wm Shakespeare" It is difficult the for unschooled to believe that the day to day life that Devere led was not recorded and subject to the scrutiny that we now assume for modern-day famous people.
Great work! Thank you
Dear Phoebe, here is a question. In the 1590’ , while a successful playwright, wasn’t Shakespeare known personally by anyone ?
Nope! Thanks for watching
😂@@phoebe_devere
There is a lot of speculation here. A man who can be proved to have been involved in the Shakespeare “machine”(the likelihood is that several writers were involved) is John Florio. This can be proved by the text of Loves Labours Lost and its links with Giovanni Bruno who could not speak English. Florio knew and translated him. Many of the sayings of Shakespeare were recorded by Florio before Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s work could not have itbeen written without Florio. This also explains the Italian connection with so many of Shakespeare’s plays.
We stick people, especially soldiers, in St Paul's these days. Nelson, Wellington and Winston are all there. The Abbey got full up by the middle of the 19th.
All 9 monuments around Shakespeare; Phillips, Drayton, Jonson, Spencer, Gray, Rowe, Gay and Goldsmith, and Prior behind, are all connected/pointing to the exact centre of the tomb by exact regular triangles. I'm trying to get some precise measurements to corroborate that claim. Alexander's 30/60/90 between Chaucer/Spencer/Shakespeare is alas bogus but he was bang on in principle. Everything I found was because he said Jonson and Drayton are looking down to him. Well Jonson will be bang on 30° and I won't know if Drayton is 17 or 18°. I thought it would be 18 but Spencer is bang on 40° and was originally erected in the same era. So we will see. The woman on Gray is Minerva and is holding an invisible vertical spear. It's bang on 30° to the centre. Rowe and Shakes are covered in 17 and 40 bearing Pythagorean triangles in all their rectangular faces. I haven't solved the large one under either of them yet but they are twinned.
They were both designed and cut by Kent and Sheemaker. Charlotte is looking through her father's eyes at the exact centre along concentric 3:4:5 triangles in the vertical. There's plenty still to unpick on the Shakespeare monument itself and on the texts of all of them. Spencer in particular looks doable.
The verse itself of the Sonnets constitutes an enormous number puzzle to go with the geometry and word crypts on the title and dedication. It will dwarf those first two pages.
I apologize for seemingly posting the same comment twice. I would not have done so had UA-cam made my original remarks visible in the first instance.
Thank you for giving credit to Hank he deserves it when I came to this conclusion and re read the sonnets I cried and Hank was the only one online saying the fair youth was oxfords son
Hank was my intro to SAQ. The movement owes him so much
Alex Waugh too the man is a encyclopedia of Shakespeare thank you for showing grace to those 2 gentlemen when I got deep into the authorship and the pregnancy controversy those 2 were the only ones making sense imho my research aligns very closely with Hank and I was laughed at even by traditional oxfordians I’m glad to see the world is waking up to the truth 😊
I did not know Alex Waugh passed I knew he was battling cancer but I didn’t know he passed I found out in your comments 😔
@@n.lightnin8298 we are all bereft :(
Call me a blind man. But de Vere's portrait contains a concealed face behind his head, hidden within the feathered finery. Perhaps Apollo?
I’ll take a look!
There is no "Shakespeare authorship question" and no question about his burial. William Shakespeare was born in Stratford and is buried there. This whole conspiracy theory was invented in the middle of the nineteenth century by Americans. Sound familiar? It gained no traction in Britain or among serious Shakespeare scholars. It is still dismissed by Shakespeare scholars. As time has gone on, the original observation which kicked off this conspiracy (that some Shakespeare plays seem to have been written by more than one author) has been confirmed. It was common practice in Shakespeare's time for playwrights to work in teams, as Hollywood scriptwriters do today. Therefore it is unsurprising that evidence of this teamwork can sometimes be found in a minority of Shakespeare's plays. Anyone wishing to investigate current knowledge about other playwrights who collaborated with Shakespeare can do so: the findings are regularly published. None of them were mysterious aristocrats. That's all, folks. Nothing to see here.
Congratulations and thanks
🙏🏻
On Terentius Lucanus, what evidence is there that he used his 25 year old slave as a front for his own works?
Nice shirt!
😉
FASCINATING. i am not clear on the :Prince Tudor thing. what evidence is there for that theory?
Check out Hank whittemore’s youtube show “shake-Speare’s treason”
On the cover of SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS, there is a blank space where the author's name should be. The name of the author is hidden in the phrase just above the blank space (the space where, again, the author's name is supposed to be!)
Never Before Imprinted = "Be In Print For M. E De Vere" OR "Be In Print For M. Vere - Dee" (John Dee) OR "Be In Print For Me, De Vere"
As Alexander Waugh said, 3 times is PROOF. Tres Sont Omnia
Who was M. E De Vere (Mr. E(dward) De Vere OR Mystery De Vere)?
Never Before Imprinted = I B M Vere - Poet, Friend
According to Waugh, De Vere was code number Forty
Neuer Before Imprinted = En Peer Number Fortie - I.D. (John Dee)
Five solutions, 3 different formats. Hard to call it a coincidence.
Comment #2 I still don't buy the theory that the 18th century Freemasons would knowingly promote Shakper unless, and this is a point you did not make, they wanted the great writer to be a bumpkin instead of an aristocrat. Remember that the mid to late 1700's resulted in the triumph of the common man via the American and French Revolutions. Perhaps they thought that making the writer an aristocrat would somehow sully his reputation. In any event, I thank you for your presentation. You've enabled me to think many thoughts.
I think we might be related
I’m not actually related to de Vere, it’s just a pseudonym :)
What is the significance of the pseudonym Shakespeare? Did De Vere choose it and if not who did? Why choose a name that's very close to that of a shady illiterate businessman who was an occasional jobbing actor and happened to know Heminges and Condell? Did De Vere want his plays and sonnets attributed to Shakspere and if so, why?
I’d recommend reading Oxford’s Voices by Robert Prechter, there’s a free excerpt on his website that is his overview of the relationship between de Vere and the Stratford man
@@phoebe_devere Thanks Phoebe
Cool research
I played at 3/4 speed to keep up
Lol
To me, the elite English didn't and don't want a person from the lower-class being able to write better than they could ever write. The English elites are really that petty.
❤BRAVO!
37:20 - "... illiterate actors Heminges and Condell" - How do illiterate actors learn their parts? What evidence is there that H&C were illiterate?
Oxfordians never let evidence get in the way of a good story 😂
I do not know of evidence for or against Hemings and Condell's literacy. Many actors at the time were functionally illiterate, in which case they would memorize their parts by having them read aloud to them.
@@lylecolombo4442 the actors were all given their own parts, written down, to learn with the line before and line after theirs as prompts. This is why to this day we talk of actors having parts. Of course they were literate. You imagine they had time to sit around learning every part by rote with the number of plays they put on? How? By reciting after the author? There were also changes to the scripts and sections cut, censored or added. It's ridiculous to say they weren't literate.
@@joannemoore3976They may have been able to read but unlikely to write
@joecurran2811 ah right, must be so mustn't it, or you wouldn't need Oxford to write the plays. There is no evidence, zilch, that Oxford wrote the plays and plenty that Shakespeare did. Including the fact that everyone acknowledged Shakespeare as the author in his lifetime. No one said, hang on, that actor fellow can't have written them, actors can't write 🙄
Should see the video with printing expert, text was tempered with
Great video but I have some disagreements.
1) Dark Lady was definitely not QE1. It was Penelope Devereux, see how S*x and b@stardry gave birth to William Shakespeare from the Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable.
2) I wouldn't be completely disregard what Waugh diecovered with John Dee. I wouldn't introduce the SAQ through that - people find it offputting. And I know post-Stratfordians have been burnt with this in the past with regard to Bacon. But I wouldn't say that what Whittrmore and Waugh discovered are mutually exclusive.
Why did Johnsom have to burn the plays though? Couldn't he have simply buried them or sent them out of country? Seems a bit wasteful from a dedicated servant.
I believe that "Shakespeare" was not deVere, but Walter Raughley. DeVere may written 'first drafts" of several of "Shakespeare's" works, which were later extensively revised by Raleigh. This would explain why Raleigh began his life at court, as a "follower" of DeVere, but they later became bitter enemies. At some point, DeVere wrote to Raleigh threatening to kill him, and/or demanding a duel. If Raleigh, according to my thesis, "stole" some plays originally written by deVere, and extensively revised and improved them, that would make perfect sense. Phoebe, is there some address, whether web or snail, where I could write you and present my evidence? I am too old and sick to write a n article for publication on this subject. I would be happy though if you would follow up this hint from me, and if you were to discover that I am right, I will cede all of the credit to you. Best regards, JCL.
J T Looney has to be a pseudonym 😂 if you asked me. ☝️ we still see this type of thing going on today.. we are still living in the renaissance . 😳
?
Super facts as usual Phoebe. Don’t like the quick zoom in and outs.
if you're referring to the b-roll, its sometimes meant more to be a visually stimulating addition to phoebe speaking more than it's meant to be read like slides in a powerpoint presentation. if you'd like to absorb it as such, feel free to pause to read.
De Vere signed his name wit a double V known now as a W. So if you break down the name its VV ill i am shake spear .. my 2 cents🙂🙂🙂
According to "orthodox" traditional Shakespearians, the name of the "Fair Youth" to whom "Shakespeare addressed most of the snnets, was Henry Wriousley (pronounced "Risley") not Henry Rosalie" as you identify him.
The name was spelled 'Wriothesley', not 'Wriousley'. Unless someone can find a poem from that period which rhymes the name with a word such as 'grisly', we'll probably never know EXACTLY how his contemporaries actually pronounced it. 'ROZE'-lee' could very well be how it was pronounced, or even 'ROTH-slee'. If the name 'Derby' could be pronounced 'DARR-bee', and 'Berkeley' pronounced 'BARK-lee', then who nowadays can be sure of how 'Wriothesley' was pronounced.
The name 'WR-IOTH-ESLEY' is encoded in 3 chunks in the Sonnets Dedication text, and the word 'Rose' is used metaphorically throughout the Sonnets, especially in the first 17. Connecting this 'Fair Youth' with a metaphorical 'Rose' might well be due, in part, to a then-perceived connection through rhyme of the name's first syllable, if indeed it was pronounced 'ROZE-lee', the word 'Rose' being pronounced 'ROZE'.
In all kindness, no one can follow this.
Too much, too fast, too disparate
I followed it fine but each to their own
45:00 - "I'm struggling to come up with an effective analogy ..." - It's exactly like the Freemasons today. They never went away, you know.
This is all great stuff. But the visuals flash past too fast to register properly, and simply distract from your (also too fast) verbals. This is a pity. Get it down in either slower, or book form, and I'm in.
I found Phoebe much easier to follow and the information to comprehend by listening, not watching. In any case it was a great presentation. Oxford's Voices is on my list.
Playback at .75 speed