@@Jeffhowardmeade Hugh Hammersley had a much different facial shape from the sitter for the Ashbourne portrait, which strongly resembles the young De Vere but in later years.
@@tomgoff6867 And yet Hammersley’s coat of arms was on the portrait, covered up by whoever wanted to sell it as a Shakespeare portrait. It was painted in 1612, when the only thing young about De Vere was his unmarked grave. And it looks just like Hammersley’s Haberdasher’s portrait.
What a find. Would the "crown" the bust seems to be wearing be an earl's coronet? I can think of two other things: would this be used like the signet Hamlet uses to stamp the "royal" emblem on the document dooming Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? And how interesting to find the name Hatton (same name as De Vere's bitter court rival) adorning the firm that gives us this remarkable info.
@@EndoftheTownProductions He may have been the patron behind a Shakespeare source play. The Famous Victories of Henry V, an anonymous play which Shakespeare used as a source for his Henry IV part 2 and Henry V, includes a historically inaccurate scene with the 11th Earl of Oxford. Shakespeare deleted it.
@@Jeffhowardmeade The Earl of Oxford, as you know, did not write any of Shakespeare's works, which the Oxfordians believe. There is no evidence in favor of this view.
@@EndoftheTownProductions Of course not. Even if the few vague biographical similarities that they tart up into "parallels" were actually based on Oxford's life, that would not be evidence that he personally wrote them. It would be far more likely that Shakespeare was making fun of him.
Next time you record, get a pop filter and put it infront of your mic. This will allow you to reduce the high frequencies in the audio track reducing unwanted mouth noise. Nice video. Thank you.
Shakespeare refers to the Gunpowder Plot in Macbeth. He mentions "equivocation" and "equivocator" and this refers to the Catholic Priest Henry Garnet who was associated with the plot. There are also other allusions to the plot in the play. The date of the Gunpowder Plot was November 5, 1605. Therefore, the play Macbeth must have been completed after this date and most likely finished in mid to late 1606. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, died on June 24, 1604, which obviously makes it impossible for him to have written the play Macbeth which has been attributed to Shakespeare and later published in the 1623 First Folio. It is difficult to write a play after you have died and there is obviously no way for Edward to have known of the Gunpowder Plot and the trial of Henry Garnet before his death.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Act 1 Scene 1 line 12. "Fair is foul, and foul is fair" is a response to Rev Lancelot Andrews, who delivered a sermon on the deliverance of King James from the Gunpowder Plot. This famous sermon, copied and read at all churches includes the line "Be they faire or foule." Wait...I've presented you with this and all of the other Macbeth references to the Gunpowder Plot how many times now? Yet you continue on as if you've never heard it before. You really don't care about facts, do you?
@@Jeffhowardmeade @Jeffhowardmeade LOL! Fair!!! "FAIR" is how "VERE" was pronounced! The publication of Macbeth was possibly spurred by the sermon, but there is no reason to assume that it was written as a response to it...unless you need it to in order to eliminate De Vere from Authorship Contention. More likely Vere was referring to himself: Fair is foul, and foul is fair; (Vere is foul, and foul is Vere) Hover through the fog and filthy air (hoVER through the fog and filthy HEIR) Shakespeare uses the pairing elsewhere. Are we to assume that Sonnet 127 refers the Gunpowder Plot? It doesn't appear to: In the old age, black was not counted FAIR, Or, if it were, it bore not beauty’s name; But now is black beauty’s successive HEIR, And beauty slandered with a bastard shame. For since each hand hath put on nature’s power, *FAIRing the FOUL with art’s false borrowed face,* (Gunpowder Plot? By your logic it must be) Sweet beauty hath no name, no holy bower, But is profaned, if not lives in disgrace. Therefore my mistress’ eyes are raven black, Her eyes so suited, and they mourners seem At such who, not born fair, no beauty lack, Sland’ring creation with a false esteem. Yet so they mourn, becoming of their woe, That every tongue says beauty should look so. So...Equivocation? No. The Medal? No. Fair/Foul? Oh God No! A wish? Pretty much.
There are no codes in Looney, Ogburn, Price or Anderson. The video goes from debunking those, to claiming the author could not possibly have taken artistic license by describing non-existent tides. I mean, come on . That's not how one debunks weak claims. Straw manning (or not knowing better) unwittingly conveys the opposite of what youre hoping. To undermine an argument (in this case a series of arguments) you first have to know what they are.
@@a_lucientes Codes are an essential part of much current nonsense proposing Oxfordian authorship. Alexander Waugh, for example, is immensely popular and uses them endlessly. And with the amount of ink spilled over the author's supposed intimate knowledge of Italy, it seems odd that suddenly it doesn't matter whether he got geographical detail right or not. This is a proposition that, though I most powerfully and potently believe, yet hold it not honesty to have it thus set down.
Looks like the Thumb ring in the left hand of the Ashbourn portrait.
So it does!
It's possible but the elongation may not match.
The Ashborne is Hugh Hammersley. He had no connection with Heddingham.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Hugh Hammersley had a much different facial shape from the sitter for the Ashbourne portrait, which strongly resembles the young De Vere but in later years.
@@tomgoff6867 And yet Hammersley’s coat of arms was on the portrait, covered up by whoever wanted to sell it as a Shakespeare portrait. It was painted in 1612, when the only thing young about De Vere was his unmarked grave.
And it looks just like Hammersley’s Haberdasher’s portrait.
Following on from another comment, a good next step would be to match this ring to its owner's portrait(s). What a fascinating find...!
What a find. Would the "crown" the bust seems to be wearing be an earl's coronet? I can think of two other things: would this be used like the signet Hamlet uses to stamp the "royal" emblem on the document dooming Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? And how interesting to find the name Hatton (same name as De Vere's bitter court rival) adorning the firm that gives us this remarkable info.
@@tomgoff6867 No, since they didn't have earls in ancient Rome. It's a Victorian ring depicting Emperor Hadrian.
Is it possible Shakespeare and De Vere collaborated on the plays, as opposed to one or the other creating them alone?
The Earl of Oxford had nothing to do with Shakespeare's plays, poems, or sonnets.
@@EndoftheTownProductions He may have been the patron behind a Shakespeare source play. The Famous Victories of Henry V, an anonymous play which Shakespeare used as a source for his Henry IV part 2 and Henry V, includes a historically inaccurate scene with the 11th Earl of Oxford.
Shakespeare deleted it.
@@EndoftheTownProductions The Earl of Oxford had everything to do with Shakespeare's plays, poems and sonnets. FIFY!!
@@Jeffhowardmeade The Earl of Oxford, as you know, did not write any of Shakespeare's works, which the Oxfordians believe. There is no evidence in favor of this view.
@@EndoftheTownProductions Of course not. Even if the few vague biographical similarities that they tart up into "parallels" were actually based on Oxford's life, that would not be evidence that he personally wrote them. It would be far more likely that Shakespeare was making fun of him.
Next time you record, get a pop filter and put it infront of your mic. This will allow you to reduce the high frequencies in the audio track reducing unwanted mouth noise. Nice video. Thank you.
Shakspur wrote nothing.
De Vere is everywhere in the works.
Name one place.
Shakespeare refers to the Gunpowder Plot in Macbeth. He mentions "equivocation" and "equivocator" and this refers to the Catholic Priest Henry Garnet who was associated with the plot. There are also other allusions to the plot in the play. The date of the Gunpowder Plot was November 5, 1605. Therefore, the play Macbeth must have been completed after this date and most likely finished in mid to late 1606. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, died on June 24, 1604, which obviously makes it impossible for him to have written the play Macbeth which has been attributed to Shakespeare and later published in the 1623 First Folio. It is difficult to write a play after you have died and there is obviously no way for Edward to have known of the Gunpowder Plot and the trial of Henry Garnet before his death.
What act and scene of Macbeth does Shakespeare mention The Gunpowder Plot?
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Act 1 Scene 1 line 12.
"Fair is foul, and foul is fair" is a response to Rev Lancelot Andrews, who delivered a sermon on the deliverance of King James from the Gunpowder Plot. This famous sermon, copied and read at all churches includes the line "Be they faire or foule."
Wait...I've presented you with this and all of the other Macbeth references to the Gunpowder Plot how many times now? Yet you continue on as if you've never heard it before.
You really don't care about facts, do you?
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Porter scene
@@EndoftheTownProductions Go on....What in the "Porter scene" could not have been derived before 1605?
@@Jeffhowardmeade @Jeffhowardmeade LOL! Fair!!! "FAIR" is how "VERE" was pronounced!
The publication of Macbeth was possibly spurred by the sermon, but there is no reason to assume that it was written as a response to it...unless you need it to in order to eliminate De Vere from Authorship Contention. More likely Vere was referring to himself:
Fair is foul, and foul is fair; (Vere is foul, and foul is Vere)
Hover through the fog and filthy air (hoVER through the fog and filthy HEIR)
Shakespeare uses the pairing elsewhere.
Are we to assume that Sonnet 127 refers the Gunpowder Plot? It doesn't appear to:
In the old age, black was not counted FAIR,
Or, if it were, it bore not beauty’s name;
But now is black beauty’s successive HEIR,
And beauty slandered with a bastard shame.
For since each hand hath put on nature’s power,
*FAIRing the FOUL with art’s false borrowed face,* (Gunpowder Plot? By your logic it must be)
Sweet beauty hath no name, no holy bower,
But is profaned, if not lives in disgrace.
Therefore my mistress’ eyes are raven black,
Her eyes so suited, and they mourners seem
At such who, not born fair, no beauty lack,
Sland’ring creation with a false esteem.
Yet so they mourn, becoming of their woe,
That every tongue says beauty should look so.
So...Equivocation? No. The Medal? No. Fair/Foul? Oh God No! A wish? Pretty much.
de Vere was truly astonishing.
ua-cam.com/video/LcIGbFHq_p8/v-deo.html
There are no codes in Looney, Ogburn, Price or Anderson. The video goes from debunking those, to claiming the author could not possibly have taken artistic license by describing non-existent tides. I mean, come on . That's not how one debunks weak claims. Straw manning (or not knowing better) unwittingly conveys the opposite of what youre hoping. To undermine an argument (in this case a series of arguments) you first have to know what they are.
@@a_lucientes Codes are an essential part of much current nonsense proposing Oxfordian authorship. Alexander Waugh, for example, is immensely popular and uses them endlessly. And with the amount of ink spilled over the author's supposed intimate knowledge of Italy, it seems odd that suddenly it doesn't matter whether he got geographical detail right or not. This is a proposition that, though I most powerfully and potently believe, yet hold it not honesty to have it thus set down.
Ich hab den selben Ring als descendant
It's a Victorian reproduction of an ancient Roman ring.
Looks phony-baloney to me...And no, it's not at all a good thing to make any assumptions about it whatsoever