Must have watched this one seventeen times at least, and i still pick up more each time. I know of no-one else who has nailed that annuity up and addressed it head on like Bonner has. Kudos
Ó Luanaigh (son/ grandson of champion)...the unfortunate 'English' corruption ((O) Looney) should have no pejorative connotation...the opposite, in fact, given the above explanation of the real meaning...he WAS indeed himself a 'champion' of research
No. His father was John de Vere 16th Earl of Oxford and mother re-married. QE1 was no doubt many things to him but not mum. Bonner speculates on the reasons for the annuity, and her research is "grateful". I would suggest watching all her stuff because she is a walking, talking education on this subject.
If you knew Boner, you wouldn't expect any better from her. This video pretty well sums up why. Oxford wrote only one sonnet which might be classified as an English-Shakespearean sonnet -- but only very loosely so since Oxford's is what's sometimes called an echo sonnet: i.e. the first 12 lines are a string of questions to which the answer is "love," and the word "love" appears as an echo at the end of each of these lines and is the first word of the 13th line. There's a definite reason that neither Shakespeare nor any other good Elizabethan poet wrote an echo sonnet, and that reason is this: they're strictly for amateurs, pedophiles, and murderers, like Edward de Vere. Oxford's echo sonnet, which is not to be confused with the Oxfordian echo-chamber on UA-cam (though one would be forgiven for this confusion), is inauspiciously titled "Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart," and I'm afraid it's all downhill from there. The fact that Shakespeare never wrote an echo sonnet is, as most experts agree, the primary reason that Oxfordians since Looney to Boner suppress the echo if they're ever brave enough to cite this sorry excuse for a sonnet. (See J. Thomas Looney, Shakespeare Identified (1920; rpt. 1975: Kennikat) 562, Ogburn 512. The echo is also suppressed in the lines from the sonnet that are used in the Benezet test, which Oxford flunked.) But for the purpose of this discussion, I'm more than happy to use Oxford's one and only sonnet which bears any resemblance to a Shakespearean sonnet as an example of the English-Shakespearean sonnet form. Stephen May, the editor of the standard scholarly edition of the poetry of Edward de Vere, has established the Oxford canon: 16 poems containing 368 lines. Oxfordians, please note, would have the world believe that these poems were written by the author of William Shakespeare's works. One need look no further than this to debunk the entire Oxfordian theory, which in actuality was debunked long ago. I repeat: One need look no further than Oxford's poetry to debunk the entire Oxfordian theory, which in actuality was debunked long ago by Oxford's own poetry. Yet it was this one bad sonnet written by Oxford which prompted J. Thomas Looney, the founding father of Oxfordianism, to fatuously assert that "the actual founder of the Shakespearean sonnet was Edward de Vere." This is arrantly laughable. It's also child's play to prove beyond any and all doubt wrong. The English-Shakespearean sonnet form was firmly -- and I do mean FIRMLY -- established before Oxford was even born, which was 1550. The first definitively known English sonnets were written by Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (1517-47), and Surrey is for this precise reason rightly regarded as the inventor of the English sonnet form. This form, which was born out of the Italian-Petrarchan sonnet form (invented some 2 centuries earlier), later became known as the English sonnet or the Shakespearean sonnet. The two terms are synonymous. They're synonymous in. exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reasons, that the Italian sonnet is synonymous with the Petrarchan sonnet. The Italian-Petrarchan sonnet is so-named after the poet Petrarch for Petrarch's excellence with the form. The English-Shakespearean sonnet is so-named after Shakespeare for Shakespeare's excellence with the form. Edward de Vere did not write any English-Shakespearean sonnets. The closest de Vere came to writing an English-Shakespearean sonnet was his echo sonnet, which he titled "Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart." Looney's assertion that "the actual founder of the Shakespearean sonnet was Edward de Vere" is one of the many, many things that's made him into something of a laughingstock, not his name. Surrey, Sidney, Spencer, Wyatt, Lodge, Daniel, Percy, Drayton, Lynche, Barnes, Griffin, Constable, and any number of other English poets published English sonnets well before de Vere had yet published even a single poem or had yet murdered even a single one of his servants, let alone his one and only quasi-sonnet which isn't an English-Shakespearean sonnet, but purely on the basis of which Looney, circa 1920, declared, without a shred of evidence, without a ghost of anything resembling reality or factual data, Edward de Vere the inventor of the English sonnet form. The truth is that there were hundreds if not thousands of sonnets published in the English-sonnet form before Edward de Vere published his one and only (echo) sonnet: "Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart." Looney's assertion is flatly false. Looney is wrong. Oxfordians know this very well. They're painfully aware of it, in fact, because Oxfordians know that this, even more than de Vere's listed death in 1604, stands as the most damning proof against their candidate, into whom they've invested their entire lives, their entire beings, like the religious ideology that it is. And all the cryptograms and great pyramids and numerological preoccupations in the universe cannot save anyone from shitty poetry. So it is that being painfully aware of this Oxfordians developed an excuse which they long ago played out: these 16 published Oxford poems, they tell the world, are "mere juvenilia" -- or, as Charlton Ogburn put it: "There is no denying that Oxford the young versifier had a long way to go." Yes, Mr. Ogburn, he did indeed. He had a very long way to go. What Oxfordians won't tell you, however, even when pressed, is that de Vere was well into his twenties when the FIRST of his "mere juvenillia poems" was printed, and by then he was already old enough to have murdered one of his servants. My God, they grow up fast, don't they? Others of the16 total published poems by Oxford -- only one of which, I reiterate, could be classified (very loosely) as an English-Shakespearean sonnet -- were written when de Vere he was in his mid-to-late forties. John Keats, just by way of reference, was 21-years-old when he composed all his great odes. As F.O. Matthiessen wrote in response to Looney's extrapolations and sloppy claims, which Oxfordians are still recycling -- in this video and elsewhere: "Of Oxford's prosody, little is said, other than to note that Oxford once wrote a sonnet in a form somewhat similar the form that Shakespeare used most often, and that he wrote a grand total of four poems in the same stanza Shakespeare used in "Venus and Adonis." Therefore, based upon this evidence, Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare.... "What they neglect to point out is that the overwhelming majority of Shakespeare's poetry is in verse forms that Oxford never used, and that many of Oxford's poems are in verse forms that Shakespeare never used. This would be surprising if Oxford had indeed written the works of Shakespeare. In that case, one might expect Oxford's poems to be the apprentice work of the man who became Shakespeare. One might expect him to be trying out the verse forms that find their fullest achievement in the plays and poems. But such is not the case at all."
Bonner is so highly entertaining, and her enthusiasm is infectious.
Thank you, Bonner. Once again, a beautifully presented piece. Brava!
Must have watched this one seventeen times at least, and i still pick up more each time. I know of no-one else who has nailed that annuity up and addressed it head on like Bonner has. Kudos
She really packed a lot in!!!
Venus and Adonis is also far too courtly a work to be attributed to a relative commoner like the Stratford man.
👍 Thumbs up !
Is his surname the Irish (Munster) name "O'Luanaigh"? (Grandson of the Warrior).
If so, it's rendering in English is 'O'Looney'.
so your argument is w/how the dead man spelled his name?
Ó Luanaigh (son/ grandson of champion)...the unfortunate 'English' corruption ((O) Looney) should have no pejorative connotation...the opposite, in fact, given the above explanation of the real meaning...he WAS indeed himself a 'champion' of research
Wasn't Oxford supposed to be her son? Would explain the money and his womanising and philandering
That is very controversial.
No. His father was John de Vere 16th Earl of Oxford and mother re-married. QE1 was no doubt many things to him but not mum. Bonner speculates on the reasons for the annuity, and her research is "grateful". I would suggest watching all her stuff because she is a walking, talking education on this subject.
It annoys me when Oxfordians mispronounce Looney as _Loney._ I expected better from Bonner.
If you knew Boner, you wouldn't expect any better from her. This video pretty well sums up why.
Oxford wrote only one sonnet which might be classified as an English-Shakespearean sonnet -- but only very loosely so since Oxford's is what's sometimes called an echo sonnet: i.e. the first 12 lines are a string of questions to which the answer is "love," and the word "love" appears as an echo at the end of each of these lines and is the first word of the 13th line. There's a definite reason that neither Shakespeare nor any other good Elizabethan poet wrote an echo sonnet, and that reason is this: they're strictly for amateurs, pedophiles, and murderers, like Edward de Vere.
Oxford's echo sonnet, which is not to be confused with the Oxfordian echo-chamber on UA-cam (though one would be forgiven for this confusion), is inauspiciously titled "Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart," and I'm afraid it's all downhill from there.
The fact that Shakespeare never wrote an echo sonnet is, as most experts agree, the primary reason that Oxfordians since Looney to Boner suppress the echo if they're ever brave enough to cite this sorry excuse for a sonnet. (See J. Thomas Looney, Shakespeare Identified (1920; rpt. 1975: Kennikat) 562, Ogburn 512. The echo is also suppressed in the lines from the sonnet that are used in the Benezet test, which Oxford flunked.) But for the purpose of this discussion, I'm more than happy to use Oxford's one and only sonnet which bears any resemblance to a Shakespearean sonnet as an example of the English-Shakespearean sonnet form.
Stephen May, the editor of the standard scholarly edition of the poetry of Edward de Vere, has established the Oxford canon: 16 poems containing 368 lines. Oxfordians, please note, would have the world believe that these poems were written by the author of William Shakespeare's works. One need look no further than this to debunk the entire Oxfordian theory, which in actuality was debunked long ago.
I repeat: One need look no further than Oxford's poetry to debunk the entire Oxfordian theory, which in actuality was debunked long ago by Oxford's own poetry.
Yet it was this one bad sonnet written by Oxford which prompted J. Thomas Looney, the founding father of Oxfordianism, to fatuously assert that "the actual founder of the Shakespearean sonnet was Edward de Vere."
This is arrantly laughable.
It's also child's play to prove beyond any and all doubt wrong.
The English-Shakespearean sonnet form was firmly -- and I do mean FIRMLY -- established before Oxford was even born, which was 1550.
The first definitively known English sonnets were written by Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (1517-47), and Surrey is for this precise reason rightly regarded as the inventor of the English sonnet form. This form, which was born out of the Italian-Petrarchan sonnet form (invented some 2 centuries earlier), later became known as the English sonnet or the Shakespearean sonnet. The two terms are synonymous. They're synonymous in. exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reasons, that the Italian sonnet is synonymous with the Petrarchan sonnet. The Italian-Petrarchan sonnet is so-named after the poet Petrarch for Petrarch's excellence with the form. The English-Shakespearean sonnet is so-named after Shakespeare for Shakespeare's excellence with the form.
Edward de Vere did not write any English-Shakespearean sonnets.
The closest de Vere came to writing an English-Shakespearean sonnet was his echo sonnet, which he titled "Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart."
Looney's assertion that "the actual founder of the Shakespearean sonnet was Edward de Vere" is one of the many, many things that's made him into something of a laughingstock, not his name.
Surrey, Sidney, Spencer, Wyatt, Lodge, Daniel, Percy, Drayton, Lynche, Barnes, Griffin, Constable, and any number of other English poets published English sonnets well before de Vere had yet published even a single poem or had yet murdered even a single one of his servants, let alone his one and only quasi-sonnet which isn't an English-Shakespearean sonnet, but purely on the basis of which Looney, circa 1920, declared, without a shred of evidence, without a ghost of anything resembling reality or factual data, Edward de Vere the inventor of the English sonnet form.
The truth is that there were hundreds if not thousands of sonnets published in the English-sonnet form before Edward de Vere published his one and only (echo) sonnet: "Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart."
Looney's assertion is flatly false. Looney is wrong. Oxfordians know this very well.
They're painfully aware of it, in fact, because Oxfordians know that this, even more than de Vere's listed death in 1604, stands as the most damning proof against their candidate, into whom they've invested their entire lives, their entire beings, like the religious ideology that it is. And all the cryptograms and great pyramids and numerological preoccupations in the universe cannot save anyone from shitty poetry.
So it is that being painfully aware of this Oxfordians developed an excuse which they long ago played out: these 16 published Oxford poems, they tell the world, are "mere juvenilia" -- or, as Charlton Ogburn put it: "There is no denying that Oxford the young versifier had a long way to go." Yes, Mr. Ogburn, he did indeed. He had a very long way to go.
What Oxfordians won't tell you, however, even when pressed, is that de Vere was well into his twenties when the FIRST of his "mere juvenillia poems" was printed, and by then he was already old enough to have murdered one of his servants. My God, they grow up fast, don't they?
Others of the16 total published poems by Oxford -- only one of which, I reiterate, could be classified (very loosely) as an English-Shakespearean sonnet -- were written when de Vere he was in his mid-to-late forties. John Keats, just by way of reference, was 21-years-old when he composed all his great odes.
As F.O. Matthiessen wrote in response to Looney's extrapolations and sloppy claims, which Oxfordians are still recycling -- in this video and elsewhere:
"Of Oxford's prosody, little is said, other than to note that Oxford once wrote a sonnet in a form somewhat similar the form that Shakespeare used most often, and that he wrote a grand total of four poems in the same stanza Shakespeare used in "Venus and Adonis." Therefore, based upon this evidence, Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare....
"What they neglect to point out is that the overwhelming majority of Shakespeare's poetry is in verse forms that Oxford never used, and that many of Oxford's poems are in verse forms that Shakespeare never used. This would be surprising if Oxford had indeed written the works of Shakespeare. In that case, one might expect Oxford's poems to be the apprentice work of the man who became Shakespeare. One might expect him to be trying out the verse forms that find their fullest achievement in the plays and poems. But such is not the case at all."