Видео

Thanks, I was trying to keep it brief as an overview for people who aren't aware of the level of evidence for a cover-up. I will be diving deeper into it in other videos. Thanks for watching and commenting!

@@billdup I think that in the Shakespeare-curious community, there is an unfortunate divide between people who have different favorite candidates-- traditional and otherwise. I wish we could all agree that the state of evidence is such that too many questions remain which need good answers. The first and foremost thing we should all concentrate on (in my opinion) is getting the world to accurately see how the works came to be known. Starting with Shaksper, it's so important to know that no writing of any kind exists in his hand outside a few signatures. Further, the real-estate and legal records of his father prove beyond doubt that "William Shaksper" did not actually grow up in Stratford and, therefor, could not have attended the Stratford Grammar School. Father, John Shaksper, testified that he was a "yeoman" and we know he sold thousands of pounds of illegal wool while owning a large farm with cottages outside of the town. How and why would he live in the tiny 30' storefront property he also owned in town? Especially when it is also noted that the plague was keeping everyone locked inside at the time. The fiction that Will Shaksper could have gone to grammar school has to be denied. If he wrote the works, it is without that particular advantage. Years later, Will Shaksper left his wife and children, broke and caring for his father who was under house arrest, so he could find work in London. Almost immediately after that, there were popular, but anonymous plays which appeared under a variety of titles which would eventually be knows as "Shakepeare"'s work. About 10 years after that, two wildly popular poems came out and the name "Shakespeare" is finally seen in print. Still, no evidence exists to say people connected the poet with the anonymous plays at that time. But, within a few years, a selection of popular plays came to be known as being "also" by Shakespeare -- but at least half of these (the "apocryphal" ones) are universally considered as works done with "Shakespeare" as a pen-name. Through the 90's, poets like Hall, Marston, Meres, and others hint that "Shakespeare" is the pen name for a hidden poet of the nobility. Then sonnets come out in 1609 by "Shake-spear" our "ever-living" (meaning "dead") poet. Then Shaksper of Stratford dies, unnoticed, in 1614. No one in Stratford or London makes any mention of this being the death of a celebrated writer. Then a Folio comes in 1623 which does nothing to explicitly reveal any details of the author's private life or biography, but states that the author is dead and has a "moniment" in a place called "Stratford" and was a "friend and fellow" to Heminges and Condell. And ONLY AFTER 40 MORE YEARS does anyone go to Stratford On Avon to see the birthplace of "William Shakespeare" -- and then, it's only to discover no one there had ever heard that the great author was from that town. I'd love to see this set of facts become closer to the established baseline. I think some such version is far more accurate than the common myth we can easily find about how the young glover's son learned all he needed to know in his Stratford school. In light of these actual, demonstrable facts, I have looked and looked for any reason to consider the traditional attribution to be credible -- and just can't do it. Sorry to go on. Didn't expect to keep typing like this. As you were! :-)

​@@floatingholmes Four years at a provincial Grammar school wouldn't teach him much, certainly not enough law. It's possible he was an autodidact taken under a nobleman's wing and given access to books, but that's another fantasy version working backwards from the writing to include the man. We know he was definitely an actor and shareholder in the theatre who accrued enough money to buy New Place. Have you watched my video on Lewes Lewkenor?

ruclips.net/video/-Uc-MzSS8k8/видео.htmlsi=FpL9V8X22eeHPT17

@@billdup I am intrigued by the history you are presenting, but I have to say that Lewes' connection to the main references we have for Shakespeare (particularly his slight connection Southampton) is not compelling enough for me to consider him a very likely candidate as the main mover behind the Shakespeare project. But I've become more and more personally interested in a group-theory of the case. It really is my current wish that, before I contribute to more arguments about who the real Shakespeare was, I want to thoroughly determine who he was NOT -- namely Shaksper of Stratford.

Lewkenor's father was MP for Midhurst in 1588, the Earl of Southampton's hometown. Lewes Lewkenor served as MP there in 1596. He also sat on the committee for the Earl's restitution when he was released by James I in 1603 and the two of them are documented receiving and escorting ambassadors. Burghley was the driving force behind urging Wriothesley to marry and at the time Lewkenor was writing propaganda for him. Obviously this is circumstantial evidence, it doesn't prove Lewkenor was the author, but when you look at his whole career and the people he is documented with a clearer picture emerges. The ambassadors he escorted are at the debut of plays at court, some are mentioned (like Orsino in Twelfth Night). But that's all still circumstantial evidence. The answer is clearer when you look at the writers sniping about this clandestine author and the clues they give about his identity. The comparison of Will Shakespeare to the playwright Terence is one of the biggest clues, Terence was accused of palming off plays by other authors, he was a slave who took his masters name. His master? Terentius Lucanu. So the allusion is reversed, Lewkenor took the name of his 'slave' William Shakespeare. Concealing his identity was essential, he had lost his right arm and the punishment for writing famously meted out on John Stubbes was having your hand chopped off. The publisher of his last book even said that Lewkenor permitted it 'with express charge howsoever I should dispose thereof, to conceal all mention of him'.

@@billdupSo you think he dictated Shakespeare’s work to him?

I knew Alexander and at our last meeting he directed me to the discovery of the 'Twice Eleven brethren' and he conceded that Lewes Lewkenor was the one being aimed at. I'm afraid de Vere died too early to have been the author and all the clues point to Lewkenor, who was at the debut performances of Twelfth Night and As You Like It. I hope you'll take the time to watch my other videos and read my book before judging. Yours sincerely, William Corbett.

ruclips.net/video/-Uc-MzSS8k8/видео.htmlsi=tdlqICDxQZZKP6Xf

@@billdup there is no way that Waugh told you that he thought for one nanosecond he thought you were right in claiming this guy was Shakes. I didn't know Waugh well but we conversed, I Zoomed with him and collaborated on the Sonnets geometry. This Lewkenor may well have been part of de Vere's scriptorium, and 1111 is fun , let's see. There is zero post dating evidence, none whatsoever, you are plain wrong on that I'm afraid. There were only ever two, tempest and lear, that had any attempt at an actual date and they have both been obliterated. Moreover, SN1604, the most significant extra solar event in human history, isn't in the works. Oh dear, that immediately rules your guy out. We have stuff to do, watch Waugh's stuff not least the Sonnets dedication decryption. This is over, we know who he was now.

​@@T0varischYou need to hear Lewkenor’s story before you dismiss it. Twice eleven is LL.

@@billdup I did. It's not very good, you can't seriously think twice eleven refers to this unknown, I mean seriously, it is something ancient in the target era. Now watch Waugh's stuff, in particular where is Shakespeare buried. I have something to make your nose bleed. The Attenborough usage isn't funny, you lose all credibility doing it. Shaksperians have an excuse for not facing up to de vere, it's just too hard to accept they are so wrong. Other sceptics don't have this excuse.