This video has elicited several questions which deserve to be answered: A good friend wrote: 'How could Edward de Vere have been 'devout' while actively encouraging a married woman to bear him a son by another man? How could he have taken a vow of chastity while sharing a mistress with his young friend, Wriothesley? Why did his detractors hate him so?' . I replied as follows: 'I am sorry if I have unintentionally misled you or others by the phrase 'shared mistress'. I do not mean 'shared-at-the-same-time mistress'. My chronology, which is highly speculative, works backwards from the only fixed point of which I am certain - the birth of Henry Vere in February 1593. His conception therefore took place in May 1592, so Oxford must have persuaded Penelope and Wriothesley to surrogate his heir in the early months of 1592. He married his second wife, Elizabeth Trentham, at the end of 1591. I speculate that he took a vow of chastity sometime before that, maybe as early as April 1590. His affair with Penelope Rich took place in the 1580s. In 'Willobie His Avisa' (1594) it is suggested that the Vere-Rich liaison was over by the time he came to advise Wriothesley on how to seduce her. The same thing is hinted by Barnfield. Two headings by Soowthern make me suspect that the Oxford-Penelope affair might have been active as early as 1584. Oxford calls his surrogated heir 'the first heir of my invention' and Wriothesley the 'godfather' of it. Though devout and God-fearing, his regard for biblical strictures (such as those concerning adultery) were highly unconventional and he was critical (among close friends) of the Bible and those who wrote it, believing it to be a work of divine origin booby-trapped by human error. It was his view that Mary, mother of Jesus, was an adulteress and Joseph a cuckold. So his reasoning, I suspect, would have been along the lines: 'if Jesus was born in this way the first heir of my invention should be also?' or 'because Jesus was born in this way, my actions are legitimate in the eyes of God'. The difficulty with Oxford is to reconcile his spiritual beliefs with his overt criticisms of the scriptures, but as I have long been saying he was some kind of proto-Mason/Templar/Rosicrucian, hence the theory concerning his vow of chastity. He once boasted he could write a better scripture in six days, and only Shakespeare could have done that! I hope this is useful, AW PS. Unconventional geniuses, especially those with great wit and access to high places, are invariably hated by lesser, straight-laced men on the rise.’
I find this too speculative and demonstrating confirmation bias, in rationalizing De Vere's motivations. While, I think AW is as usual incisively on to the facts; it's just a slightly off frame of reference. What I infer from these biblical references is the justification for Wriothesley to bear him an heir, which is: that Wriothesly IS the first heir of his invention. I say the point of all this saving of his good name, is precisely to counter the official record, which is actually MISSING for this period. That points to a different cover-up than the one primarily discussed. That is: Wriothesley is De Vere's child with Elizabeth. That is why he wanted an heir from him so badly. I read much less into De Vere's criticism of the bible. The point of Masons saving his good name, is that he was as devout as his associations with those groups would attest. Wriosthesly as his bastard with Elizabeth is a much less cumbersome theory; than concocting he took a vow of chastity to be pious, and then pressed the boundaries of pious practice. Wriothesley as his bastard has elegant simplicity. Theories I've seen show the timing lines up with Elizabeth being incognito for the birth time frame.
In the dedication to ‘Venus and Adonis‘ Wriothesley is described as the ‘godfather’ to the first heir of Shakespeare’s invention. He cannot be a godfather to himself so, no, Wriothesley is not the first heir of Oxford’s invention, Henry de Vere is - a paternity that is known to God. What you are advocating is called ‘Prince Tudor Theory’ which is taken down very ably by John Hamill in the current edition of Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter. Corroboration of the surrogacy of Henry de Vere can be found in a great many of the presentations on this channel. More to follow...
@@russellmartocci323 To understand where Elizabethans were coming from, you must realize that censorship was always hanging over the heads of writers and artists. In such an authoritarian state as Elizabethan and Jacobean England was, writers who wanted to say things which could have been interpreted as upsetting the Great Chain of Being (the social order) had to hide them in clever puzzles, allusions, and clues, which leads to what they really wanted to say. That is perhaps the most important 'confirmation bias' which is required if we are to understand the writing of the time. Anything less than that does a disservice to the writers of the time and we end up misunderstanding so much.
Also speculative is Rene Girard's chronology of Shakespeare's plays - roughly, from comedies to tragedies to romances - and the development of Shakespeare's suspicion of men as cuckolds and women as adulteresses, roughly again from Hero and Helena to Desdemona to Hermione. What do you think of Girard's work and whether Shakespeare's suspicions of cuckoldry in plays can map onto Oxford's life?
6x Southampton Sonnet 17 - I believe line 4 bears "h wriothesley"(2x). Lines 9+10 yield "wriothesley e southampton"(2x). Also "wriothesley"(2xmore) if lines 13+14 are plumbed (48 fat characters remain, however).
I subscribed based on the video about Ben Johnson’s plan of the memorial at holy trinity. I am so happy to have found you and your videos. As someone who is open minded, free from dogma but not so open that my brains have fallen out, I have appreciated your understanding of the culture and society around the hidden evidence which is intrinsic to the understating of the bigger picture, the detail and to a personal depth to Shakespeare’s work and how it relates to the true writer. As this is my third video of yours I have watched, perhaps you go on to say this elsewhere but I have always thought that there was a Templar “renaissance” or a carrying on of tradition through learned men of this era who encoded important information through art and architecture.-pen mightier than the sword- Was Shakespeare a vessel then for a fraternity to lay out truths beyond persecution or prosecution- an anonymous website, an information radiator and a free channel for expression hidden in plain sight? It also hints to oak island and draws in the as above below architectural plan of the Masonic rewriting of London as a new Jerusalem (abandoned )too. There’s a lot of connection beyond this, the story grows tentacles and pervades society further. Your work sets my mind racing! I’ve always thought that intrinsically, the idea of magick or spelling, are the mechanics of language and how we create the world through symbols, the “th” linked at its essence and is essentially the sound of your own breath. I think as a viewer, reader consumer it can be easy to fall into code breaking and drawn into the mechanics and fascination of the interconnectedness of it all but overlook the emotive, the emotional connectedness that happens in the imagination- and vice versa depending on how you first approach some of this great work.
I enjoy your videos very much, Mr. Waugh. I don't believe that Shak-sper or Shakespeare of Stratford could have written the plays ascribed to him. I am also sceptical about one single person being the author of those 37 (?) plays. Assuming De Vere wrote them, why no one came out ten or twenty years later and declared that De Vere actually wrote the plays? This is a question that Stratfordians might justifiably ask. Incidentally, I have written three verse plays based on The Tempest, The Merchant of Venice, and Othello. The curious and unfortuante thing is that while my self-published plays are acquired by libraries and individuals in the US,, Canada, and Australia, hardly any British library or institution cares. My most recent play is Atallah, the Moor of Venice, Atallah being a faithful Muslim north-African, not a converted Christian. I also declare 'Shakespeare' a bigot, a racist, an anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-Black, and not the godlike great man he is usually painted.
Mr. Waugh, Why don’t Oxfordians draw more attention to the fact that when Ben Jonson mentions Stratford he is telling the people of London of the Stratford that all Londoners were familiar with: Stratford of East London. The people of London wouldn’t have ant knowledge of any other Stratford! Especially not one so many days distant.
You are confusing Leonard Digges with Ben Jonson. Digges mentions the Stratford "moniment" in his eulogy for the First Folio. I would think that with the limited education of most people at the time, few people would have identified Stratford in Warwickshire, let alone the Stratford district in London. Unless commoners had relatives or knew someone who regularly visited the Warwickshire town, the reference would have gone over their heads.
Astonishing. The question is was he a saint or sinner. And you ... fail to mention that he was a murderer. Is this ignorance, stupidity, or mendacity? Anyone?
Oxford killed a drunken cook who ran upon him when he was practicing fencing moves with another man in 1567. He was seventeen years old. His sword punctured an arterial vein in the man's leg. It was a tragic accident. Oxford by the way was not the only poet-playwright to have killed a man in those times. I trust that your implied indignation at this incident extends also to Ben Jonson who killed the actor Gabriel Fielding, who had previously killed James Freake, to poet-playwright Christopher Marlowe and to the poet-playwright Thomas Watson who between them managed to slay William Bradley and to the playwright John Day who killed another playwright, Henry Porter and to the poet-playwright Barnabe Barnes, who tried to murder John Browne and to the poet George Turberville, who murdered Robert Jones in 1573. Playwright-poet, Robert Greene, went around with a thuggish murderer called Cutting Ball, to rough up his enemies. You have an awful lot to be hot under the collar about when it comes to Elizabethan poet-playwrights. Stratford-Shaksper, who was not of course either a poet or a playwright, was served an ASBO in 1597 for putting a chap called William Wayte under 'fear of death'.
Alexander is a superb academic writer and his breath of knowledge about who really wrote Shakespeare words and De Vere is outstanding and probably the leading academic on this subject in the World today!! Keep up the outstanding work Alexander! Also just touching on Alexanders genius is from his coding 6-2-4 Edward-De-Vere! Fascinating!!
@@richarddenton7724 harsh. i suppose tempest957 means in an ideal world where ideology, status, power and money dont motivate humans more than the truth
@@andy-the-gardenerGood point. Look up the life of the Earl. You'll find he murdered an under-cook and abducted a chorister. This has somehow escaped this amazing scholar's attention.
Not sure who is the greater genius here - the cypher or decryptor. The Sonnet 17 reference has me titling towards Waugh - whose first name contains the letters DEE... KP
What a generous comment - thank you. I tried as an experiment to embed a similar message in a short poem of my own devising and I can assure you that the deciphering is far easier than the enciphering. I bow to the infinite superiority of John Dee.
Thomas Thorpe was the publisher. The evidence for his having written the dedication consists of no more than the initials T.T appended to it. I discuss the use of these initials in a presentation called ‘John Dee, Shakespeare and the triangular lodge at Rushton’.
Thanks Alexander. Reading your article in THE OXFORDIAN, Volume XVI 2014 regarding Jonson’s “Sweet Swan of Avon” it reminded me of a couple of things that Jonson might have linked. “The ancient Greeks believed that a swan was mute throughout its life, but right before it died it sang a beautiful, melodious song, happy that it would be joining its master, the god Apollo.” (Alexander Atkins 2014). Also, the legal doodah “The Case of Swans” in 1592 decided that Elizabeth I could claim ownership of all unmarked mute swans in English waters. (Katy Barnett 2020). She owned De Vere the mute swan.
On the other hand, the feathers that made the best quills came from swans. You can make it mean what you want it to mean, if you try. And my God, you people really try.
Wonderful and wow! Thank you again Alexander, for your work, for your succinct explanations and for an extremely entertaining and enlightening presentation. Who could dispute that so much (symbolism, meaning, placement) relating to Oxford is crammed into this (just) 146 letter dedication?
That reading of the iconography of Sonnet 17 as signalling 1740, and the quadruple anagrams to Wriostheley is quite fascinating (among other things in the video).
Fascinating stuff! Just one thought that occurs to me...the 6,2,4 number significance is very clear...Has anyone noticed that Midsummer Day, being June 24th (i.e. 6/24 or 24/6, figures not only in a play title (is Midsummer Night's Dream the dream of the "knight" Edward de Vere?) but (curiouser and curiouser) is the stated date of death for both de Vere (1604) and his sister Mary EXACTLY 20 years later (1624)!
In Shakespeare's era the new year started on Lady Day, March 25. June was not then the sixth month, and anyway nobody numbered months like that back then.
@@Jeffhowardmeade That is a good point, I had been wondering about that. Feels like I've seen contradictory information on this. I'd like to find a good article on how Elizabethans perceived their calendar. From what I can gather, Lady Day, March 25 was day when they'd roll the year number forward, but somehow they still considered January to be the first month of the annual calendar, which had been the practice with the Julian calendar since it was first instituted in Rome. The Folger website has an article on this, "Untangling Lady Day dating and the Julian calendar." It says: "The idea that year numbering advances annually on 25 March took hold at different times in different places. It became common in England by the late 12th century, but 1 January remained the first day of the calendar when reciting the months, listing feast days, issuing almanacs, etc." The instance that first came to mind was Edmund Spenser's The Shepheard's Calendar, which begins with January. I had come across some of this material reading through biographies of John Dee, who had been tasked with evaluating the new Gregorian calendar. Apparently (according to Glyn Parry) he came up with a slightly more accurate proposal than the system being implemented by the Catholic Church, but Francis Walsingham conducted some political maneuvers to ensure that Dee's proposals were rejected.
@@Alacrates While I can understand Walsingham not wanting to adopt a Catholic calendar, he studied in Italy, so can't have been a Catholic hater. I can't find anything that uses numerals in the place of months prior to the 1930s. The Shepheards Calendar refers to ordinal Aecloga, which coincide with the modern numbers of the months. Unless De Vere decided to check himself out on a specific date, it's really a moot point.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Not sure if Walsingham held a personal animus against every Catholic, but I do think he was a militant Protestant. I think a person of the time could value the learning and culture of Italy while still being an opponent of the papacy. Of course there were many Italians themselves who were fervent Protestants, like for example John Florio's father, a pastor to an Italian Anglican church in London. As far as I understand it, the University of Padua was the Italian university that was most independent of the Church, a lot of people with differences with the Catholic church went to study there. And Walsingham spent his time there before his time as ambassador to France and witnessing the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. I'm not familiar with the term ordinal Aecloga, I'm not aware of what that means, but also not sure that Virgil's Eclogues were arranged in a calendar format? Seems to me Spenser's The Shepard's Calendar is arranged by the Julian calendar, which I think is basically how Elizabethans conceived of the months of the year. I could be wrong, but that's my impression. My guess is (based on no research) is that concept of rolling the year number forward in March is based on older Anglo-Saxon / Germanic traditions, where the arrival of Spring marked the beginning of a new year, and was maintained in some tension with the Julian calendar. (Again, I'd like to find a good article that delves into this topic.) I do think your idea to check if any Elizabethans recorded dates in a numerical format, using a number for a month, is a good one. Though I don't think it necessarily precludes the possibility that someone working in a cryptographical frame of mind, might have referred to Midsummer's Day as 6/24. Waugh's theories involve individuals finding "the number of their name" according to the ideas of John Dee, which was of course not standard practice for the era either. I don't think this is a moot point, if we're evaluating Oxfordian theories. A lot of Oxfordians do suspect that de Vere chose to commit suicide on Midsummer's Day, and a smaller set of Oxfordians theorize that de Vere chose Midsummer's Day to feign his death and live out his last few years in seclusion. Whether or not Elizabethans ever recorded dates in a numerical format, my guess is that, if you were to ask them what the sixth month was, they would count from January and not from March, and reply with June and not September. Kind of baffles me, considering Lady Day as being a new year's day, but my guess is that was the case.
De Vere has an androgynous look, quite extreme even for the time and no beard. He refers to this in the sonnets, his dual male female nature. It could be interpreted "spiritually" as inner and outer nature of self, or could have been literally female/ male.
Great stuff Alexander- as always! Im a huge Dee fan of last 6yrs now, cryptology was just one of this guys vast areas of expertise. Makes me laugh when I see the art Historians describing him as a conjurer and occultist. I remember watching a presentation on you tube from the Royal College of Physicians on John Dee Exhibition of his books in their collection and one professor bought up a slide showing Edward Kelley reading a book by Abbot of Sponheim, Johanne Trithemius (grand daddy of cryptology and one of the first books Dee was keen to collect when he travelled ). The professor went on to give a glowing description of how these 2 guys (Dee and Kelly) could never have possibly been spies!!! AND they are there with libraries full of books on cryptology ( i thought professor were men of learning and researched these things but seems not these days) and even Kelly is reading the abbots cryptology book on the slide she is showing from that period! As you say Alexander, his stuff is a privilige to decrypt, like looking inside swiss watch!
"Not only did Ben Jonson know Shakespeare, he said he loved him. ''I loved the man and do honour his memory (this side idolatry) as much as any,'' he wrote in 1619, three years after Shakespeare's death." *Wouldn't have Ben Jonson noticed that in regular conversations, Shakespeare was an uneducated goat?*
He not only would have, he DID. He claimed that Shakespeare possessed "small Latin and less Greek" and that he "wanted art". Of course, the Shakespeare that Oxfordians hypothesize couldn't read the name on his son's tombstone. Not a guy with grammar school Latin, not a guy who didn't understand Aristotelian poetics, but a complete dunderhead. Jonson didn't know that guy.
In light of your The Divinity of Man video, when he says that “truth lies buried at the center of the Earth,” this very strongly evokes the old alchemical motto, VITRIOL: “Visita Interiora Terrae Rectificando Invenies Occultum Lapidem,” “Visit the interior of the earth and rectifying/purifying you will find the hidden stone.” It’s hard to say whether this is coincidental, a case of him arriving at the same metaphor because he was influenced by the same general tradition, or if he was conscious of this particular phrase & alluding to it intentionally, but nonetheless it was striking enough that I thought it warranted mentioning. Great work. Also- I don’t think there is any contradiction between someone being a saint (or otherwise devout) & being a sinner. (a) Psychologically & spiritually speaking, we all have our shadow- it’s an intrinsic part of who we are, even if we do our best to be good people & hold high ideals, & (b) even in the Christian framework that was hegemonic at their time & place, it was dogma that human beings sin by nature. Whether a particular Christian bought into the concept of original sin, that we were literally “born in sin,” or not, I would still think they’d tend to accept the belief that sin is a natural part of the human condition & that even the saints- being human- at some point succumbed to sin. I’ve heard it said by Christians that what makes Christian saint a saint is not in that they never sinned, but in what they did after they overcame sin, accepted Jesus Christ as their lord & savior, & took on the path of righteousness. There’s a reason that rituals like confession came to exist; because even the good, church-going Christians had a natural tendency to sin. It doesn’t take a lot of thinking about the number of Christian/Catholic priests who have been caught for horrific crimes to know that Christians- even the most devout- are no exception to these tendencies. And just to be clear, I don’t have a negative/pessimistic view of human nature; people who believe that human beings’ nature is defined solely by the tendency to sin, to be lazy, to be greedy, to be selfish, etc., are wrong. It seems self-evident to me, since we can see plenty of people in the world who are selfless, compassionate, ambitious, altruistic, etc., that human nature has a (non)dual potential. We have it in us to be selfish or selfless, to be caring or careless, to be peaceful or violent... And as a result of our higher cognitive faculties- the faculties which allow us to engage in self-reflection, logic, reason, ethical consideration, mathematics, etc. (which are at the heart of what differentiates humanity from the other species of the Earth)- we have the capacity to look at our instinctual & biological impulses & to ask ourselves “Is that really what I want? Is there a reason (perhaps found in higher values or morality or simply self-motivated reasoning) that I should do otherwise?” This capacity to choose between our lower self & our higher self, to do as we will (even if we cannot will as we will, to paraphrase Schopenhauer) shapes who human beings are as a species, & the dialectical conflict between our contradictory drives & desires as we apply these higher faculties to work out what kind of balance to strike (whether to act selfishly or selflessly, whether to engage in morally questionable behaviors, etc.) is the process by which each of us figures out who we are & who we want to be & strives to ascend from the one to the other (if indeed that aspiration even arises in that particular person).
Thank you so much for summarising a bit from EDV's life. I would love if you could go even deeper and elaborate on your personal view regarding his life, how he was perceived, why were there these two VERY different views on his persona, why was he despised by some? , etc..! Thank you again. Your videos are the highlight of my day when they arrive! Bon chance ! 🙏
I'm guessing the dichotomy of his favour and distaste suggests that some had worry about his knowledge of them and the chance of being written about by SHAKESPEARE ! It has to be De Vere. His ability to travel in such high circles and reveal the inner workings of said swamp.
I am not a scholar but greatly enjoying your work. One question I have. Was the Shakespeare of Stratford aware that he was being cited as the author? If so was he paid to keep quiet?
I suspect that if he did, he blackmailed de Vere to keep his identity as "Shakespeare" a secret. That migh explain how Shakspere could afford so much property in so short a time.
Astonishingly good ... ...I guess that I can just add one thing. We need to think as a modern man of the time ( not our time, but theirs) and consider the bloodline/s. Deciphering the code is like unravel the DNA of history...at least ...in my mind
Dee reborn. Wow. Are the sonnets in chronological order of DeVere’s life? #33 is the time when his son died, are the ones before and after in order? Did he code anything in his personal writings, those that we know he signed? How many and which people are needed to move the monument and look for DeVere then perform DNA testing against the 18th Earle?
This is amazing and very impressive. If Dee did this, was he perhaps guided by the angels he contacted using Enochian? Are there signs of Enochian in Shakespeare?
This tawdry correlation between one's life and one's art being so laboriously enacted here,always wishful, always beseeching; in the hope of gaining more adherents to the oxford man. I grant therefore a quote,simply, and in a defence of one great man to the defence of another "No, you must allow the novelist's imagination to roam more freely than that you know" (Evelyn Waugh)
Evelyn Waugh used his imagination to create fictional characters out of lived experience. It was both a kaleidoscopic and photographic imagination - Shakespeare did exactly the same.
I have come to your your work only very recently and in that journey discovered Petter Amundsen´s work. As he shows similar decoding methods as you, how would you relate and do you belive now that there could be a group that both de Vere and Bacon were part of?
What about the theory that he fathered a son with Elizabeth I and that was the lie he carried. He had an heir but the lie kept him from being DeVeres known heir?
Not Elizabeth but Penelope Rich. If you explore the presentations I have put online you will find a great deal of evidence pointing to her as the so-called ‘Dark Lady’ and mother of Henry de Vere.
Haven't watched this yet, but it's exactly the crux of the issue. I will say this; weren't all the people who preserved Edward De Vere's memory, members of polite society? I trust no one's analytical acumen more than Waugh's. He'll no doubt serve up some nourishing food for thought on the matter.
I found this magical. It has the beauty of a work of art. Math as art, truth, beauty and divinity. It feels akin to the greatest of the ancient greek thinkers. I feel transported in time and wonder!
Contrariwise! It has been very esoteric and extremely complicated, but if it hadn't been BOTH, who would care to listen and watch? Alexander Waugh did it again! But never forget the Stratfordians: 'Oh it's all a bunch of coincidences.' Right? When will they ever learn? Thanks so much.
To explain it to a poorly educated man as myself, so that I understand it is something in itself. Just amazing. Ah, the more I know,the less I know. I always did enjoy the plays. Merchant of Venice being my favorite. No matter who wrote them. I now Believe Oxford did.
Fyi.. 17th EO did have a son called Edwardius Vere, raised by Francis and Horace Vere (two great Elizabethan Generals) in the Netherlands and Belgium. They were known as the Fighting Vere's. Also there was another Edward Vere who was Shot in the back of his head somewhere on the lower countries showing Lord Norfolk battle information
One of the incorrect assumptions we make about these people is that they we’re adults. Having survived infancy they were lucky to make it out of their 30’s. They inhabited a world full of young inexperienced men and women bumbling through their short life as best they could.
I find a lot of similarities between the Earl and John Wilmot 2nd Earl of Rochester. Very very promiscuous and railing against religion and yet believing in it. You can "say" you believe in Hobbs but do, you really.
Genius is a strange thing - it appears suddenly amongst any group of people - even amongst the commoners like William Shakespeare; no, the writer did not go to university; no, he did not emerge from the aristocracy; no, he was from an English village backwater and not from a landed estate; he relished broad sexual humour (pun after pun after pun on his name for example) and used any device at hand to create his art; Christopher Marlowe was Shakespeare's only rival in literary ability - Marlowe died very young; it is possible that Shakespeare was a discrete, profoundly clever writer who adapted to circumstances very quickly and a man who was very interested in money. Mr Waugh has many theories and they all relate to the upper classes of England. William Shakespeare lost his only son Hamnet when the boy was only 11/12 years old - if - in circumnavigational theory - you examine the first lines listed alphabetically of Shakespeare's considered shocking Sonnets you will find a coded message - perhaps - to the loss of Hamnet and the guilt engendered by the death of his beloved only son and heir; Shakespeare had these Sonnets published himself. Theories are as theories only theories - yet Shakespeare's words are not theories at all - they are in themselves sufficient and still relevant even today.
I respect your opinion but I don’t think you understand how class worked in Elizabethan England. I mean that in regards to learning. Some of the lines of the plays refer to books that are were only in the possession of Oxford, his teachers and Lord Burghley. There were no public libraries. Can you explain to me how a commoner would have had access to those works? I am not being at all blasphemous when I say this but it would have taken divine intervention for an uneducated commoner to write at that level. You cannot judge Elizabethan England by modern times. Nor can you transpose modernity onto Elizabethan England.
‘R’o’’’s’ey ‘Rosy lips and cheeks within his bending sickle’s compass come.........’. Sonnet 116 ‘Their Rosie-tainted features clothed in tissue.....’. (Weever epigrams)
Not very nice with the lads, although in fairness it must be said Bacon, the author you're looking for, was also guilty of the English vice, although he was nicer about it.
It's a shame that the 'Welbeck portrait', a poorly done _copy_ of a lost original, is often used as a reference - the 'Ashbourne portrait' (preferably viewed with its obscene over-painted pate cropped so it doesn't distract), rendered later in de Vere's life, almost certainly provides a far better idea of de Vere's visage and personality (although when he sat for it, probably well into in his forties, his face was unsurprisingly somewhat more care-worn).
It was originally a portrait of Hugh Hammersley. During the 19th Century, the bald pate was added and Hammersley's coat of arms covered over to make it look like Shakespeare. It was painted in 1612, long after De Vere died.
Alexander I love your video's an interesting theory about his chastity. Perhaps the answer could be more physical. I was looking at the biography of de Vere, could the injury sustained in the skirmishes with Knyvett have wrecked his family planning?
But the Knyvett duels took place in the 1582 and Oxford’s daughter Susanna was born in May 1587 so if Knyvett’s swash-buckling failed to prevent the conception of Susanna, how could it have prevented the conception of an heir in 1592?
@@alexanderwaugh7036 That's a good point, yet may I make a suggestion? If a man felt the need to have a male heir, and if, for whatever reason, he could not 'get' one himself, there was one recourse available in Mosaic Law: the Levirate Marriage. "The Handy Bible Dictionary and Concordance" defines 'Levirate Marriage' as: "Jewish custom according to which when an Israelite without male heirs died the nearest relative married the widow, and the first born son became the heir of the 1st husband (Deut. 25:5-10)" Granted, Edward de Vere wasn't dead in either 1582, 1587, or 1592 -- he died in 1604 -- so at first glance this Levirate Marriage business might seem to have nothing to do with his situation. But, what if De Vere had, after some extramarital dalliance, acquired an STD, a malady which had 'deadened' his procreative 'member'? Is it not conceivable (pardon the pun) for a desperate man made 'lame' by venereal disease to justify having his "nearest [male] relative" provide the service of sowing seed to be raised as his heir? As you say, Oxford's daughter Susanna was born in May 1587 -- but he had no way of knowing that the child would be a daughter when it was begotten (assuming he himself did the begetting). Improbable though it may seem, is it not possible that Oxford was 'dead' (i.e. impotent) and had had a male relation of his perform the deed of impregnation in his stead? Similarly, if Oxford had been made 'lame' due to a viciously aimed sword-thrust from Thomas Knyvet in 1582 -- that is, if a venereal disease was not the problem -- then might not Oxford have had a surrogate impregnate Anne -- leading to the birth of yet another daughter, Susanna? Anne might not have even known that a different man had been with her, if a 'Bed-Trick' had been applied, and if the bed chamber had been dark enough. Following this, with the death of Anne after this and his subsequent marriage to Elizabeth Trentham, your scenario of Oxford soliciting the surrogacy of Southampton with the fertile Penelope Rich to produce -- finally! -- a son to continue the Oxford line, makes sense of the evidence you've presented so magnificently in your presentations. Yet I would maintain the possibility -- indeed, the probability -- that Wriothesley would represent Oxford's ideal surrogate if he were, indeed, Oxford's nearest male relative. I know you're not in favor of the 'Prince Tudor' theory -- or, theories, as the scenario presented in the disappointing film "ANONYMOUS" would have us believe that Oxford, too, was a son of QE1, as well as the father of her Royal Bastard Wriothesley. I don't believe that Oxford was -- or even could have been -- QE1's son, but I don't rule out him having fathered Wriothesley on her. Are there not hints of royal-language being used of the Fair Youth in the Sonnets? Oxford, had he thought to apply the rules of the Levirate Marriage -- considering his own generative powers to be 'dead' (either from VD or from being unmanned by Knyvet's stab) -- would have been constrained, biblically speaking, to seeking out a surrogate who was his closest male relative. What would his options have been? One of the 'Fighting Veres', Horace or Francis? Why not either of them? Or, what about his bastard son Edward, born to Anne Vavasor -- or would he have been too young? Why would he petition Henrie Wriothesley to surrogate an Heir for the earldom of Oxford if there weren't already a secret family connection? In the eyes of God, wouldn't Oxford be having his actual son -- whom the world 'knew' to be another man's son -- beget a grandson for him to be raised as his supposed son and Heir? If such had been done in secret, then with Oxford acknowledging Henry de Vere as his own son -- despite knowing him to actually be his own grandson -- the 'official' history would consider the boy to be the son of Edward and his countess Elizabeth Trentham . . . though tongues might wag, and her status as a 'virgin' might be mentioned in a poem.
Edward de Vere was not a split personality, i.e. a rogue and a saint: he was a servant of the Establishment and very much a part of it, and flattery was the order of the day at court. What morally wanting twisters they were. God cannot have inspired or been pleased with the means used to adopt someone else's child: in the case of John Dee, wife swapping; in the case of Edward de Vere, persuading a "fair youth" to procreate with one's mistress. By the way, when exactly did Shakespeare and the 3rd Earl of Southampton have affairs with John Florio's wife Avis? Edward de Vere's Renaissance boast of being able to re-write the Bible in 6 days would certainly indicate he was Shakespeare. For him to have said the BVM was an adulteress and Joseph a cuckold is not just way out but clean contrary to the dogmas of early Church Councils and early Fathers and Creeds, and heretical. As for the suggestion Edward de Vere took a vow of celibacy with the Knights Templar in 1590, they were perpetually suppressed in 1312 and replaced in Portugal by the Order of Christ. What Orders could there have been in England after the Dissolution under Henry VIII/ Thomas Cromwell, some restoration under Mary Tudor, and then the almost entire wiping out of the Catholic religion under Elizabeth I, after the Pope relieved her subjects of allegiance to her? The Freemasons adopted symbols of the Military Orders - perhaps the Templar seal depicting 2 Knights on a horse.
Interesting post, for which many thanks. With Vere, Dee, Bruno, Tresham I think we are looking at a lofty theology based on a Prisca Theologia inspired by Hermes Trismegistus, so I think it is hard to judge their attitudes and behaviours from a Catholic perspective without feeling negative. What I think needs greater study is the influence of Jewish and Egyptian thought on Oxford. A new thesis on Shakespeare’s hermetism is soon to be published which will be very interesting. I don’t subscribe to the Avis Florio theory of Willobie, but offer an alternative in the playlist ‘Shocking Points!’
...and poor old Bruno, a very holy man, was murdered by the Inquisition. I quite understand that many aspects of Hermetism are abhorrent to Catholics, but I am not presenting here to advocate one side or the other. My use of the word ‘lofty’ was not intended as a compliment, only to give a sense of the hypostatic position of the prisca theologia in intellectual renaissance circles at this time.
Actually, the real author was Edward de Vere. Alas, what Mr. Waugh has produced, doesn't prove anything. People 400 years ago didn't produce shapes from 3 T's, out from nothing. The only sensible way of proving is finding visible (I MEAN visible) clues, connect them, explain them. But haphazard findings (ordering letrers in columns and rows) show your own thinking, not the thinking of the real author. Just one minor example: three letters in a randomly arranged tabloid, in a randomly determined direction gives D E E. What on Earth does it prove??
If you study John Dee's Mona's Hieroglyphica, you'll find an contemporary example of an Elizabethan arranging letters into various shapes. Placing text into grids of a set number of columns is a modified version of Giordano Cardano's innovations in cryptology. Dee spent time with Cardano in London in the 1550s, and de Vere prompted & provided prefatory materials for an English translation of Cardano's De Consolatione, which seems to have been the inspiration for the "to be or not to be" sililoquy in Hamlet. Doesn't strike me as so far fetched that Dee and de Vere could've devised an encrypted text based on Cardano's methods and Dee's previous works.
Thank you for sharing your work and process with us. In the numerological section of your presentation (18:50) the 14th column also has another bit inside it, especially as regards the De Vere line, because as the biblical verse states the number fourteeen 3 x and if you add those up, you get the number 42/6. !
Good show as usual, Alexander, and thank you. I should mention that although I'm subscribed to this channel and have in the past received notifications when new videos are posted, I did not get one for this issue. Merely FYI in case there is some glitch or Parallax is suppressing your work.
Google have stopped all notifications to my email address. Their argument is that a very small percentage of notifications are followed up. Quite why that should be a problem to them I don't know.
Your work is amazing., thank you for sharing. The incredible intricacy of these devices is overwhelming to the uninitiated. Can you suggest a video where you explain some of the techniques with simpler examples? tia
Dear Rob, thank you for your email. The work on the sonnets dedication encryptions is, alas, spread over many presentations, but I would recommend that you start with 'Where is Shakespeare Really Buried' parts 1-5. You will be very familiar with it then. The reason to why Vere is represented as the 4th T of 17 40 comes later in a presentation called 'John Dee's Secret Patron Revealed' while the use of '1740' in his signature is shown in 'Samuel Sheppard Knew...'. I hope you enjoy exploring.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank you for taking the time to make those suggestions. I am familiar with these kind of 'masonic devices' but have never seen them so beautifully explained. As you say the sonnet dedication is an amazingly intricate piece of cryptography. I was fascinated to learn of DeVere's patronage of Dee - makes a lot of sense... I remember seeing some simple examples of these devices in one of your videos - something about a Countess being a bit of a floozy, or similar? The simplicity of these devices makes them less incredible, they are easier to see, so I wanted to share them with some friends to ease them into the subject slowly? I will, with pleasure, watch the videos again and look forward to being able to buy your book? Sincerely Rob Shaw
Dont you find it a bit "coincidental" his first name is edward and his last name contains the word dee? Referencing both edward kelly and john dee. I personally find this compelling. What are your thoughts on this please? Thanks for sharing.
You didn't think, perhaps, that the fact that Vere was a murderer was some reflection on his moral worth? Or that he left the pregnant widow of his victim to her own devices? It is frankly ASTONISHING that you go for the supposed sexual peccadillo and ignore the fact that in a morally just world, the Earl would have been behind bars for years. Or, under the laws of the time, strung up? Or do you just think that an earl of his rank had the right to murder an underling?
Hi Vince - a few more 'murderers' among the poets and playwright's of the day, who did not get 'strung up' in the morally just world that you cannot ignore: Ben Jonson, poet and plauright, killed Gabriel Spencer, actor, who had already killed James Freake. Christopher Marlowe, poet and playwright, killed William Bradley; Marlowe was murdered by Ingram Frizer, Nicholas Skeres and Robert Poley (1593). Thomas Watson, poet and playwright, participated in the murder of William Bradley. John Day, playwright, killed playwright Henry Porter in 1599 Barnabe Barnes, poet, attempted to murder John Browne by poison in 1598. George Turberville, poet, killed Robert Jones in 1573. Poet and playwright, Thomas Churchyard (1580) [see Woodcock’s Churchyard p. 213, also named as spy for the French there) George Whetstone, poet and playwright, attempted to kill a man outside Bergen op Zoom in 1587 but was himself killed.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Ben Jonson killed someone in a DUEL. That's not really the same thing. And I don't think that the defence of 'yeh but this other person murdered someone too' has ever cut much ice in a court of law. This is the 'whatabout' defence, It cuts no ice. A murderer is a murderer even if the bloke across the road also murdered someone. Of course, whether we should consider a writer's moral worth when commenting on their work is a tricky one. I'm always a little dubious about poets who buggered off to somewhere safe during world war two to save their pwecious little lives.
Column 3!, it's astonishing how much is hidden in plain sight even now. John Anthony mentioned a double cross on the extreme right on column 18 but I can't find a description of it. If we are having 18 as a notable column it screws up this Babylonian 60. I also cannot find your description, which was the first of your's I watched, of the key on "read if thou canst". What's the video called ? I've written a Cardano grid searching tool. It's really not a great deal of use other than testing any assertions. TTT is actually extremely common, you will be very hard pressed to find a block of plain text anywhere that does not contain this in multiple grids. There are actually nine grid widths on the sonnets that have a TTT, and as it happens they are all at the top or bottom of the grid bar one which is on the right. VERES is also exceptionally common. In latinised (U to V) text it turns up not just a lot but persistently. TTT and Vere in an upside down T is not a worthwhile test. Roper's tantalising but incorrect analysis of read if thou canst is as important as the false baconian cardanos. I'm trying to explain why these are false, that they are inevitable, and your solutions, or rather Dee's encryption specifically on the Sonnets, are not. Green's work on the front page has just blown me away. I am in the process of seeing how near I can get to Giza and verifying his numbers. I appreciate that bringing Kufu's pyramid into this while searching for the grave makes everything look a bit Von Daneken, but that is no ordinary circle is it. Proving the cardanos is tough. I'm throwing vast texts at my program, I can test all possible grids (to a reasonable width limit) in the whole of the KJB and Shakespeare for anything you like in 15 minutes flat. An utterly futile procedure other than to get a feeling for what's remarkable. Individually most of these things are much more common than I had calculated. It's all about accepting that the rabus shapes themselves conform to a narrative imo. Green's discoveries and assertions on that geometry are more easily proved, and independently of the dedication.
I'm lost at the point when you organize the text into a grid. If the text were already in a grid, I'd be up for all the rest. Some of your other talks stress the importance of placement of text and size of the font, etc. So why is it ok to assume you can reorganize the text as it's printed? Are there external corroborating sources that make it clear this was some kind of pastime? Other examples of learned people reorganizing texts into grids to find hidden meanings? If so, it'd help your argument to explain that, and source them.
Answers to your questions are given in many of the videos on this channel. If you watch the video "Incalculable Genius of John Dee" for instance I think you will get a better understanding of this grid, how it works, how it was found, how it fits into the pattern of cryptology in those days known as Cardano Grills etc. I would also recommend the series 'Where is Shakespeare Really Buried 1-5'. Do come back to me if you have further queries after that. AW
Cardano was a strange bird himself, and his book anticipates his own need for consolation. It is interesting that Cardano would write of sons, as one of his own was executed for murdering his wife (as the son learned or suspected that his children were those of another man) and the other Cardano himself disinherited for stealing from his dear old dad. Cardano himself was accused of homosexuality molestation of his students. If Vere took a Templar vow of chastity, I suspect it was of the kind that would abstain from sex with women only.
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.
Dear Anon. You have yourself in a terrible confusion of false facts and misstatements. Please read the errata anthology ‘Costested Year - errors, ommissions and false statements in James Shapiro’s ‘1606 The Year of Lear’(Amazon.com) before posting anything as goofy as at again.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Dear Alex, These aren't "false facts" at all but well-established references to the Gunpowder Plot. There are other allusions to the plot as well if you care to look objectively at the play instead of viewing it through the distorted lens of Oxfordianism.
I take that as admission that you are indeed ignorant of all the counter evidence. I do wonder why people like you bother coming on threads like these so wretchedly unprepared.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 The Oxfordian argument regarding the trials of Campion and Southwell and equivocation that predate the 1604 death of Oxford is unconvincing since there are simply too many direct contemporary allusions to the 1605 Gunpowder Plot -- the coin of the survival of King James and the serpent "innocent flower," Garnet "equivocator," Hugh Griffin "English Tailor" -- that contextualize the play, not to mention the obvious theme of regicide. Read An English Tailor and Father Garnet's Straw by H. L. Rogers.
Edward DeVere Signature. In another video you touched on the d that resembled a 1 and O that was the 0 for a 10 and seven hatch marks for 17. I wondered why his coronet had 4 pearls, which is a baron's coronet instead of 5 for the Earl coronet. The 4 pearls and the 0 in Oxford, is 40? So we have 1740 in his handwriting. The coronet seems to be the letters, V V u or I, with the 4th pearl to be off there stem one would find in the earl coronet. Then if you turn the signature to the right, the E in Edward resembles a triple tau to me. The middle arm should not be in a T formate, but instead a straight line. Elizabethian era letters were more formal and eloquent but the middle arm doesn't appear as a T from what I can find. If you take a mirror image of his signature and turn it 90 degrees, the original line with the seven hash marks becomes a Rho and the coronet as well, but where is the Chi? Perhaps I am dreaming. And why the heck did he change his last name from OxFord to OxenFord for his signatures? The greek Tau, Ox or Oxen, same meaning.....
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I am most ignorant on these things, but the pictorials of the coronets show barrons with 4 low pears and the earls with 5 high pearls. The site "shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/rough-winds-do-shake-a-fresh-look-at-the-tudor-rose-theory" shows a hand scribed pictorial of the various coronets, unsure of the time period of these drawings. Also they mention in the description the signature shows the Earl coronet, but do not comment on the number of pearls which contradicts the drawings. Do they think it a mistake on Oxford part given the drawings. Also, the line under his signature represents 10 according to them, is that accurate? But that E in Edward is an H lying on its side. If something can be shown in Oxofrds handwriting or his know works about the triple tau and 1740 I think it would seal the deal.
Christopher I assure you that the number of pearls on an Earl’s coronet is not significant. His coronet is distinguished from a baron’s solely by the height of them - known as raised pearls. You can find multiple pictures of earls’ coronets with different numbers of raised pearls showing.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Please don't be offended if I am pushing to hard, i am an eager learner of anything not to do with my profession:) I was looking at the Quarterd arms of earl's during that time period. Robert Dudley, Ambrose Dudly, George Clifford, Henry Percy, Earls of Nottingham, Henry Herbert, Will Somerset and even Robery Cecil, the 1st earl of Salisbury. Those Quartered arms are toped with the earl coronet and 5 pearls on them. However, William Cecil (baron) and Baron Petre quarter arms are topped with baron coronets and have 4 pearls. If OxFord was writing a letter to the either Cecil and in light of what must have been a tense relationship would he not have used the higher number pearls to express hierarchy over them and as such the use of 4 signals a different purpose? Or are these quartered arms adorned with coronets a new design post Elizabethain era?
@@advancedfaces Not at all offended. Thank you for your persistence. I think I am guilty of not entirely understanding what you were getting at when I first responded. Knowing how the Elizabethan mind works I should not be at all surprised if the four pearls on the signature were relevant and, as you say, to work out 17 40 from that would be very significant. The standard earl's coronet has eight raised pearls of which five are commonly shown in heraldry but was this obligatory back then? I have seen Vere's arms displaying six, five, and sometimes three. Southampton's arms have three raised pearls on the Jenner engraving I show elsewhere on this channel. I will look back at the signature with a view to this. You may be on to something interesting here!
Keanu Reeves is not only a superb Shakespearean actor he is also a highly intelligent man who fully understands the complexities of the Shakespearean authorship question. I am delighted by this news. Thank you for relaying it. Did he recommend the video from his own site?
I am a thoroughly committed Oxfordian, but I have a question. Why did all the poets and writers continue to reveal in secret code that de Vere wrote the poems and plays. Why the secrecy long after his death?
i could be quite mistaken, but I would imagine the vow of chastity as might have been practiced by the likes of De Vere would not exactly forbid sexual activity. Only that it would forbid a certain type of sexual activity - i.e. activity with anyone who was lacking true spiritual enlightenment.
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
This video has elicited several questions which deserve to be answered: A good friend wrote: 'How could Edward de Vere have been 'devout' while actively encouraging a married woman to bear him a son by another man? How could he have taken a vow of chastity while sharing a mistress with his young friend, Wriothesley? Why did his detractors hate him so?' . I replied as follows:
'I am sorry if I have unintentionally misled you or others by the phrase 'shared mistress'. I do not mean 'shared-at-the-same-time mistress'. My chronology, which is highly speculative, works backwards from the only fixed point of which I am certain - the birth of Henry Vere in February 1593. His conception therefore took place in May 1592, so Oxford must have persuaded Penelope and Wriothesley to surrogate his heir in the early months of 1592. He married his second wife, Elizabeth Trentham, at the end of 1591. I speculate that he took a vow of chastity sometime before that, maybe as early as April 1590. His affair with Penelope Rich took place in the 1580s. In 'Willobie His Avisa' (1594) it is suggested that the Vere-Rich liaison was over by the time he came to advise Wriothesley on how to seduce her. The same thing is hinted by Barnfield. Two headings by Soowthern make me suspect that the Oxford-Penelope affair might have been active as early as 1584.
Oxford calls his surrogated heir 'the first heir of my invention' and Wriothesley the 'godfather' of it. Though devout and God-fearing, his regard for biblical strictures (such as those concerning adultery) were highly unconventional and he was critical (among close friends) of the Bible and those who wrote it, believing it to be a work of divine origin booby-trapped by human error. It was his view that Mary, mother of Jesus, was an adulteress and Joseph a cuckold. So his reasoning, I suspect, would have been along the lines: 'if Jesus was born in this way the first heir of my invention should be also?' or 'because Jesus was born in this way, my actions are legitimate in the eyes of God'. The difficulty with Oxford is to reconcile his spiritual beliefs with his overt criticisms of the scriptures, but as I have long been saying he was some kind of proto-Mason/Templar/Rosicrucian, hence the theory concerning his vow of chastity. He once boasted he could write a better scripture in six days, and only Shakespeare could have done that!
I hope this is useful, AW
PS. Unconventional geniuses, especially those with great wit and access to high places, are invariably hated by lesser, straight-laced men on the rise.’
I find this too speculative and demonstrating confirmation bias, in rationalizing De Vere's motivations. While, I think AW is as usual incisively on to the facts; it's just a slightly off frame of reference. What I infer from these biblical references is the justification for Wriothesley to bear him an heir, which is: that Wriothesly IS the first heir of his invention. I say the point of all this saving of his good name, is precisely to counter the official record, which is actually MISSING for this period. That points to a different cover-up than the one primarily discussed. That is: Wriothesley is De Vere's child with Elizabeth. That is why he wanted an heir from him so badly. I read much less into De Vere's criticism of the bible. The point of Masons saving his good name, is that he was as devout as his associations with those groups would attest. Wriosthesly as his bastard with Elizabeth is a much less cumbersome theory; than concocting he took a vow of chastity to be pious, and then pressed the boundaries of pious practice. Wriothesley as his bastard has elegant simplicity. Theories I've seen show the timing lines up with Elizabeth being incognito for the birth time frame.
In the dedication to ‘Venus and Adonis‘ Wriothesley is described as the ‘godfather’ to the first heir of Shakespeare’s invention. He cannot be a godfather to himself so, no, Wriothesley is not the first heir of Oxford’s invention, Henry de Vere is - a paternity that is known to God. What you are advocating is called ‘Prince Tudor Theory’ which is taken down very ably by John Hamill in the current edition of Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter. Corroboration of the surrogacy of Henry de Vere can be found in a great many of the presentations on this channel. More to follow...
@@russellmartocci323 To understand where Elizabethans were coming from, you must realize that censorship was always hanging over the heads of writers and artists. In such an authoritarian state as Elizabethan and Jacobean England was, writers who wanted to say things which could have been interpreted as upsetting the Great Chain of Being (the social order) had to hide them in clever puzzles, allusions, and clues, which leads to what they really wanted to say. That is perhaps the most important 'confirmation bias' which is required if we are to understand the writing of the time. Anything less than that does a disservice to the writers of the time and we end up misunderstanding so much.
Also speculative is Rene Girard's chronology of Shakespeare's plays - roughly, from comedies to tragedies to romances - and the development of Shakespeare's suspicion of men as cuckolds and women as adulteresses, roughly again from Hero and Helena to Desdemona to Hermione. What do you think of Girard's work and whether Shakespeare's suspicions of cuckoldry in plays can map onto Oxford's life?
6x Southampton Sonnet 17 - I believe line 4 bears "h wriothesley"(2x). Lines 9+10 yield "wriothesley e southampton"(2x). Also "wriothesley"(2xmore) if lines 13+14 are plumbed (48 fat characters remain, however).
The genius of Shakespeare's generation, and in you (sadly lonely by comparison) in recovering it, is humbling and awe-inspiring. Thrice praised.
Your generosity thrice praised - thank you!
I subscribed based on the video about Ben Johnson’s plan of the memorial at holy trinity.
I am so happy to have found you and your videos.
As someone who is open minded, free from dogma but not so open that my brains have fallen out, I have appreciated your understanding of the culture and society around the hidden evidence which is intrinsic to the understating of the bigger picture, the detail and to a personal depth to Shakespeare’s work and how it relates to the true writer.
As this is my third video of yours I have watched, perhaps you go on to say this elsewhere but I have always thought that there was a Templar “renaissance” or a carrying on of tradition through learned men of this era who encoded important information through art and architecture.-pen mightier than the sword-
Was Shakespeare a vessel then for a fraternity to lay out truths beyond persecution or prosecution- an anonymous website, an information radiator and a free channel for expression hidden in plain sight? It also hints to oak island and draws in the as above below architectural plan of the Masonic rewriting of London as a new Jerusalem (abandoned )too. There’s a lot of connection beyond this, the story grows tentacles and pervades society further.
Your work sets my mind racing! I’ve always thought that intrinsically, the idea of magick or spelling, are the mechanics of language and how we create the world through symbols, the “th” linked at its essence and is essentially the sound of your own breath.
I think as a viewer, reader consumer it can be easy to fall into code breaking and drawn into the mechanics and fascination of the interconnectedness of it all but overlook the emotive, the emotional connectedness that happens in the imagination- and vice versa depending on how you first approach some of this great work.
You are brilliant Alexander. Well done.
Fantastic scholarship thank you for sharing your gift!
I enjoy your videos very much, Mr. Waugh. I don't believe that Shak-sper or Shakespeare of Stratford could have written the plays ascribed to him. I am also sceptical about one single person being the author of those 37 (?) plays. Assuming De Vere wrote them, why no one came out ten or twenty years later and declared that De Vere actually wrote the plays? This is a question that Stratfordians might justifiably ask.
Incidentally, I have written three verse plays based on The Tempest, The Merchant of Venice, and Othello. The curious and unfortuante thing is that while my self-published plays are acquired by libraries and individuals in the US,, Canada, and Australia, hardly any British library or institution cares. My most recent play is Atallah, the Moor of Venice, Atallah being a faithful Muslim north-African, not a converted Christian. I also declare 'Shakespeare' a bigot, a racist, an anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-Black, and not the godlike great man he is usually painted.
*Alexander Waugh* I like your video
Mr. Waugh,
Why don’t Oxfordians draw more attention to the fact that when Ben Jonson mentions Stratford he is telling the people of London of the Stratford that all Londoners were familiar with: Stratford of East London. The people of London wouldn’t have ant knowledge of any other Stratford! Especially not one so many days distant.
When does Ben Jonson mention Stratford? I don’t think he does.
You are confusing Leonard Digges with Ben Jonson. Digges mentions the Stratford "moniment" in his eulogy for the First Folio.
I would think that with the limited education of most people at the time, few people would have identified Stratford in Warwickshire, let alone the Stratford district in London. Unless commoners had relatives or knew someone who regularly visited the Warwickshire town, the reference would have gone over their heads.
Yes most likely the genius William Shakespeare
Astonishing. The question is was he a saint or sinner. And you ... fail to mention that he was a murderer. Is this ignorance, stupidity, or mendacity? Anyone?
Oxford killed a drunken cook who ran upon him when he was practicing fencing moves with another man in 1567. He was seventeen years old. His sword punctured an arterial vein in the man's leg. It was a tragic accident. Oxford by the way was not the only poet-playwright to have killed a man in those times. I trust that your implied indignation at this incident extends also to Ben Jonson who killed the actor Gabriel Fielding, who had previously killed James Freake, to poet-playwright Christopher Marlowe and to the poet-playwright Thomas Watson who between them managed to slay William Bradley and to the playwright John Day who killed another playwright, Henry Porter and to the poet-playwright Barnabe Barnes, who tried to murder John Browne and to the poet George Turberville, who murdered Robert Jones in 1573. Playwright-poet, Robert Greene, went around with a thuggish murderer called Cutting Ball, to rough up his enemies. You have an awful lot to be hot under the collar about when it comes to Elizabethan poet-playwrights. Stratford-Shaksper, who was not of course either a poet or a playwright, was served an ASBO in 1597 for putting a chap called William Wayte under 'fear of death'.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 So you believe it was an accident, but yet it still inspired the scene where Hamlet murders Polonius?
Alexander is a superb academic writer and his breath of knowledge about who really wrote Shakespeare words and De Vere is outstanding and probably the leading academic on this subject in the World today!! Keep up the outstanding work Alexander! Also just touching on Alexanders genius is from his coding 6-2-4 Edward-De-Vere! Fascinating!!
If you think he is a 'superb academic' - you are setting an incredibly low bar!
@@richarddenton7724 harsh. i suppose tempest957 means in an ideal world where ideology, status, power and money dont motivate humans more than the truth
@@andy-the-gardener no he’s just Dennis the Menace with a library card
@@richarddenton7724 the irony. (libraries). i'll leave that with you to work out
@@andy-the-gardenerGood point. Look up the life of the Earl. You'll find he murdered an under-cook and abducted a chorister.
This has somehow escaped this amazing scholar's attention.
Not sure who is the greater genius here - the cypher or decryptor.
The Sonnet 17 reference has me titling towards Waugh - whose first name contains the letters DEE...
KP
What a generous comment - thank you. I tried as an experiment to embed a similar message in a short poem of my own devising and I can assure you that the deciphering is far easier than the enciphering. I bow to the infinite superiority of John Dee.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I thought the author was Thomas Thorpe (T.T.). What is his role then?
Thomas Thorpe was the publisher. The evidence for his having written the dedication consists of no more than the initials T.T appended to it. I discuss the use of these initials in a presentation called ‘John Dee, Shakespeare and the triangular lodge at Rushton’.
Thanks Alexander. Reading your article in THE OXFORDIAN, Volume XVI 2014 regarding Jonson’s “Sweet Swan of Avon” it reminded me of a couple of things that Jonson might have linked. “The ancient Greeks believed that a swan was mute throughout its life, but right before it died it sang a beautiful, melodious song, happy that it would be joining its master, the god Apollo.” (Alexander Atkins 2014). Also, the legal doodah “The Case of Swans” in 1592 decided that Elizabeth I could claim ownership of all unmarked mute swans in English waters. (Katy Barnett 2020). She owned De Vere the mute swan.
Interesting interpretation. I suppose Queen Elizabeth I 'owned' Oxford through his 1,000 pound annuity.
On the other hand, the feathers that made the best quills came from swans. You can make it mean what you want it to mean, if you try. And my God, you people really try.
Wonderful and wow! Thank you again Alexander, for your work, for your succinct explanations and for an extremely entertaining and enlightening presentation. Who could dispute that so much (symbolism, meaning, placement) relating to Oxford is crammed into this (just) 146 letter dedication?
I can't watch enough of these. Thanks so much for putting out so many!
I am also addicted to them. They are so fascinating.
Me too! My husband is now a RUclips widower!
That reading of the iconography of Sonnet 17 as signalling 1740, and the quadruple anagrams to Wriostheley is quite fascinating (among other things in the video).
That darn dedication....... Just when you're certain you've wrapped your brain around it...
Bravo. Can’t wait for the Netflix documentary.
Your research and presentation of this evidence is hugely Impressive. I hope you're working toward a book on the subject yourself eventually.
Fascinating stuff! Just one thought that occurs to me...the 6,2,4 number significance is very clear...Has anyone noticed that Midsummer Day, being June 24th (i.e. 6/24 or 24/6, figures not only in a play title (is Midsummer Night's Dream the dream of the "knight" Edward de Vere?) but (curiouser and curiouser) is the stated date of death for both de Vere (1604) and his sister Mary EXACTLY 20 years later (1624)!
Fascinating Duncan thank you for this insight!
In Shakespeare's era the new year started on Lady Day, March 25. June was not then the sixth month, and anyway nobody numbered months like that back then.
@@Jeffhowardmeade That is a good point, I had been wondering about that. Feels like I've seen contradictory information on this. I'd like to find a good article on how Elizabethans perceived their calendar.
From what I can gather, Lady Day, March 25 was day when they'd roll the year number forward, but somehow they still considered January to be the first month of the annual calendar, which had been the practice with the Julian calendar since it was first instituted in Rome.
The Folger website has an article on this, "Untangling Lady Day dating and the Julian calendar." It says:
"The idea that year numbering advances annually on 25 March took hold at different times in different places. It became common in England by the late 12th century, but 1 January remained the first day of the calendar when reciting the months, listing feast days, issuing almanacs, etc."
The instance that first came to mind was Edmund Spenser's The Shepheard's Calendar, which begins with January.
I had come across some of this material reading through biographies of John Dee, who had been tasked with evaluating the new Gregorian calendar. Apparently (according to Glyn Parry) he came up with a slightly more accurate proposal than the system being implemented by the Catholic Church, but Francis Walsingham conducted some political maneuvers to ensure that Dee's proposals were rejected.
@@Alacrates While I can understand Walsingham not wanting to adopt a Catholic calendar, he studied in Italy, so can't have been a Catholic hater.
I can't find anything that uses numerals in the place of months prior to the 1930s. The Shepheards Calendar refers to ordinal Aecloga, which coincide with the modern numbers of the months.
Unless De Vere decided to check himself out on a specific date, it's really a moot point.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Not sure if Walsingham held a personal animus against every Catholic, but I do think he was a militant Protestant. I think a person of the time could value the learning and culture of Italy while still being an opponent of the papacy. Of course there were many Italians themselves who were fervent Protestants, like for example John Florio's father, a pastor to an Italian Anglican church in London.
As far as I understand it, the University of Padua was the Italian university that was most independent of the Church, a lot of people with differences with the Catholic church went to study there. And Walsingham spent his time there before his time as ambassador to France and witnessing the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.
I'm not familiar with the term ordinal Aecloga, I'm not aware of what that means, but also not sure that Virgil's Eclogues were arranged in a calendar format? Seems to me Spenser's The Shepard's Calendar is arranged by the Julian calendar, which I think is basically how Elizabethans conceived of the months of the year. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.
My guess is (based on no research) is that concept of rolling the year number forward in March is based on older Anglo-Saxon / Germanic traditions, where the arrival of Spring marked the beginning of a new year, and was maintained in some tension with the Julian calendar. (Again, I'd like to find a good article that delves into this topic.)
I do think your idea to check if any Elizabethans recorded dates in a numerical format, using a number for a month, is a good one. Though I don't think it necessarily precludes the possibility that someone working in a cryptographical frame of mind, might have referred to Midsummer's Day as 6/24. Waugh's theories involve individuals finding "the number of their name" according to the ideas of John Dee, which was of course not standard practice for the era either.
I don't think this is a moot point, if we're evaluating Oxfordian theories. A lot of Oxfordians do suspect that de Vere chose to commit suicide on Midsummer's Day, and a smaller set of Oxfordians theorize that de Vere chose Midsummer's Day to feign his death and live out his last few years in seclusion.
Whether or not Elizabethans ever recorded dates in a numerical format, my guess is that, if you were to ask them what the sixth month was, they would count from January and not from March, and reply with June and not September. Kind of baffles me, considering Lady Day as being a new year's day, but my guess is that was the case.
Yet another superb presentation Alexander.., 👏🏻
De Vere has an androgynous look, quite extreme even for the time and no beard. He refers to this in the sonnets, his dual male female nature. It could be interpreted "spiritually" as inner and outer nature of self, or could have been literally female/ male.
Great stuff Alexander- as always! Im a huge Dee fan of last 6yrs now, cryptology was just one of this guys vast areas of expertise. Makes me laugh when I see the art Historians describing him as a conjurer and occultist. I remember watching a presentation on you tube from the Royal College of Physicians on John Dee Exhibition of his books in their collection and one professor bought up a slide showing Edward Kelley reading a book by Abbot of Sponheim, Johanne Trithemius (grand daddy of cryptology and one of the first books Dee was keen to collect when he travelled ). The professor went on to give a glowing description of how these 2 guys (Dee and Kelly) could never have possibly been spies!!! AND they are there with libraries full of books on cryptology ( i thought professor were men of learning and researched these things but seems not these days) and even Kelly is reading the abbots cryptology book on the slide she is showing from that period! As you say Alexander, his stuff is a privilige to decrypt, like looking inside swiss watch!
"Not only did Ben Jonson know Shakespeare, he said he loved him. ''I loved the man and do honour his memory (this side idolatry) as much as any,'' he wrote in 1619, three years after Shakespeare's death." *Wouldn't have Ben Jonson noticed that in regular conversations, Shakespeare was an uneducated goat?*
He not only would have, he DID. He claimed that Shakespeare possessed "small Latin and less Greek" and that he "wanted art". Of course, the Shakespeare that Oxfordians hypothesize couldn't read the name on his son's tombstone. Not a guy with grammar school Latin, not a guy who didn't understand Aristotelian poetics, but a complete dunderhead. Jonson didn't know that guy.
Absolutely amazing!
In light of your The Divinity of Man video, when he says that “truth lies buried at the center of the Earth,” this very strongly evokes the old alchemical motto, VITRIOL: “Visita Interiora Terrae Rectificando Invenies Occultum Lapidem,” “Visit the interior of the earth and rectifying/purifying you will find the hidden stone.” It’s hard to say whether this is coincidental, a case of him arriving at the same metaphor because he was influenced by the same general tradition, or if he was conscious of this particular phrase & alluding to it intentionally, but nonetheless it was striking enough that I thought it warranted mentioning. Great work.
Also- I don’t think there is any contradiction between someone being a saint (or otherwise devout) & being a sinner. (a) Psychologically & spiritually speaking, we all have our shadow- it’s an intrinsic part of who we are, even if we do our best to be good people & hold high ideals, & (b) even in the Christian framework that was hegemonic at their time & place, it was dogma that human beings sin by nature. Whether a particular Christian bought into the concept of original sin, that we were literally “born in sin,” or not, I would still think they’d tend to accept the belief that sin is a natural part of the human condition & that even the saints- being human- at some point succumbed to sin. I’ve heard it said by Christians that what makes Christian saint a saint is not in that they never sinned, but in what they did after they overcame sin, accepted Jesus Christ as their lord & savior, & took on the path of righteousness. There’s a reason that rituals like confession came to exist; because even the good, church-going Christians had a natural tendency to sin. It doesn’t take a lot of thinking about the number of Christian/Catholic priests who have been caught for horrific crimes to know that Christians- even the most devout- are no exception to these tendencies.
And just to be clear, I don’t have a negative/pessimistic view of human nature; people who believe that human beings’ nature is defined solely by the tendency to sin, to be lazy, to be greedy, to be selfish, etc., are wrong. It seems self-evident to me, since we can see plenty of people in the world who are selfless, compassionate, ambitious, altruistic, etc., that human nature has a (non)dual potential. We have it in us to be selfish or selfless, to be caring or careless, to be peaceful or violent... And as a result of our higher cognitive faculties- the faculties which allow us to engage in self-reflection, logic, reason, ethical consideration, mathematics, etc. (which are at the heart of what differentiates humanity from the other species of the Earth)- we have the capacity to look at our instinctual & biological impulses & to ask ourselves “Is that really what I want? Is there a reason (perhaps found in higher values or morality or simply self-motivated reasoning) that I should do otherwise?” This capacity to choose between our lower self & our higher self, to do as we will (even if we cannot will as we will, to paraphrase Schopenhauer) shapes who human beings are as a species, & the dialectical conflict between our contradictory drives & desires as we apply these higher faculties to work out what kind of balance to strike (whether to act selfishly or selflessly, whether to engage in morally questionable behaviors, etc.) is the process by which each of us figures out who we are & who we want to be & strives to ascend from the one to the other (if indeed that aspiration even arises in that particular person).
WOW! Four Wriothesley (s) in Sonnet 17!
Another wonderful presentation Mr. Waugh, thank you.
Edward De Vere 17th Earl of Oxford is the 2nd best candidate for the true William Shakespeare. Francis Bacon is the first.
Thank you so much for summarising a bit from EDV's life. I would love if you could go even deeper and elaborate on your personal view regarding his life, how he was perceived, why were there these two VERY different views on his persona, why was he despised by some? , etc..!
Thank you again. Your videos are the highlight of my day when they arrive!
Bon chance ! 🙏
I'm guessing the dichotomy of his favour and distaste suggests that some had worry about his knowledge of them and the chance of being written about by SHAKESPEARE !
It has to be De Vere. His ability to travel in such high circles and reveal the inner workings of said swamp.
I am not a scholar but greatly enjoying your work. One question I have. Was the Shakespeare of Stratford aware that he was being cited as the author? If so was he paid to keep quiet?
No one knows for sure.
I suspect that if he did, he blackmailed de Vere to keep his identity as "Shakespeare" a secret. That migh explain how Shakspere could afford so much property in so short a time.
Excellent work. Neither too complicated, nor esoteric... Thank you.
I agree with your chastity suggestion. No mortal could produce all that he did if he were constantly in lust.
Beth bloomer - Sonnet 129 might seem to back that up:
The expense of spirit in a waste of shame, Is lust in action...
Astonishingly good ...
...I guess that I can just add one thing.
We need to think as a modern man of the time ( not our time, but theirs) and consider the bloodline/s.
Deciphering the code is like unravel the DNA of history...at least ...in my mind
Superb video - and a splendid channel. Subbed and liked.
Dee reborn. Wow. Are the sonnets in chronological order of DeVere’s life? #33 is the time when his son died, are the ones before and after in order? Did he code anything in his personal writings, those that we know he signed? How many and which people are needed to move the monument and look for DeVere then perform DNA testing against the 18th Earle?
This is amazing and very impressive. If Dee did this, was he perhaps guided by the angels he contacted using Enochian? Are there signs of Enochian in Shakespeare?
There are signs of everything in Shakespeare should you want to find it.
Have a look ,I`m sure you can tease it out.
Yes, and Paul is dead.
Always stimulating. Is there any intention of collecting these presentations into a book at some point?
Yes there is
Saint or sinner, he was not the author of Shakespeare's plays
have you looked into the cover of Sir Henry Billingsley's first English version of Euclid's Elements, 1570? the book has a preface by john dee
See my presentation ‘John Dee’s Secret Patron Revealed’ where I do just that.
Stunning encryption... indeed a marvel to behold...
`brilliant work can't wait for more, bravo
This tawdry correlation between one's life and one's art being so laboriously enacted here,always wishful, always beseeching; in the hope of gaining more adherents to the oxford man. I grant therefore a quote,simply, and in a defence of one great man to the defence of another "No, you must allow the novelist's imagination to roam more freely than that you know" (Evelyn Waugh)
Evelyn Waugh used his imagination to create fictional characters out of lived experience. It was both a kaleidoscopic and photographic imagination - Shakespeare did exactly the same.
I have come to your your work only very recently and in that journey discovered Petter Amundsen´s work. As he shows similar decoding methods as you, how would you relate and do you belive now that there could be a group that both de Vere and Bacon were part of?
What about the theory that he fathered a son with Elizabeth I and that was the lie he carried. He had an heir but the lie kept him from being DeVeres known heir?
Not Elizabeth but Penelope Rich. If you explore the presentations I have put online you will find a great deal of evidence pointing to her as the so-called ‘Dark Lady’ and mother of Henry de Vere.
So, is the conspiracy real?
Haven't watched this yet, but it's exactly the crux of the issue. I will say this; weren't all the people who preserved Edward De Vere's memory, members of polite society? I trust no one's analytical acumen more than Waugh's. He'll no doubt serve up some nourishing food for thought on the matter.
This is all new to me so I'm particularly delighted with each posting and the growing story. What joy amidst the denial of a Life In Covid!
...and what a joy to read posts like yours. Thank you.
I found this magical. It has the beauty of a work of art. Math as art, truth, beauty and divinity. It feels akin to the greatest of the ancient greek thinkers. I feel transported in time and wonder!
Contrariwise! It has been very esoteric and extremely complicated, but if it hadn't been BOTH, who would care to listen and watch? Alexander Waugh did it again! But never forget the Stratfordians: 'Oh it's all a bunch of coincidences.' Right? When will they ever learn? Thanks so much.
To explain it to a poorly educated man as myself, so that I understand it is something in itself. Just amazing. Ah, the more I know,the less I know. I always did enjoy the plays. Merchant of Venice being my favorite. No matter who wrote them. I now Believe Oxford did.
Thank you for your heartening message!
THe straight lined THorn symbol WiTH THe Trip pull Tau makes the 17 4T. LooKing at the THorn symbol you can easily see the 17
Fyi.. 17th EO did have a son called Edwardius Vere, raised by Francis and Horace Vere (two great Elizabethan Generals) in the Netherlands and Belgium. They were known as the Fighting Vere's. Also there was another Edward Vere who was Shot in the back of his head somewhere on the lower countries showing Lord Norfolk battle information
One of the incorrect assumptions we make about these people is that they we’re adults. Having survived infancy they were lucky to make it out of their 30’s. They inhabited a world full of young inexperienced men and women bumbling through their short life as best they could.
RIP Alexander. You've opened up a whole new world and ALSO show us how the truth is so elusive.
Love it! Thank you
Esoteric Knowledge.
I've always wondered
If it is knowledge,
There's probably a good reason
Why it hasn't become
More widely knowledgeable.
I find a lot of similarities between the Earl and John Wilmot 2nd Earl of Rochester. Very very promiscuous and railing against religion and yet believing in it. You can "say" you believe in Hobbs but do, you really.
Saints ARE SINNERS!!!! I’d say he was just maybe one of the good guys.... but he was a royal, so.... hard to say....
How long did it take to do all this intricate coding?
More than two weeks I should think.
Genius is a strange thing - it appears suddenly amongst any group of people - even amongst the commoners like William Shakespeare; no, the writer did not go to university; no, he did not emerge from the aristocracy; no, he was from an English village backwater and not from a landed estate; he relished broad sexual humour (pun after pun after pun on his name for example) and used any device at hand to create his art; Christopher Marlowe was Shakespeare's only rival in literary ability - Marlowe died very young; it is possible that Shakespeare was a discrete, profoundly clever writer who adapted to circumstances very quickly and a man who was very interested in money. Mr Waugh has many theories and they all relate to the upper classes of England. William Shakespeare lost his only son Hamnet when the boy was only 11/12 years old - if - in circumnavigational theory - you examine the first lines listed alphabetically of Shakespeare's considered shocking Sonnets you will find a coded message - perhaps - to the loss of Hamnet and the guilt engendered by the death of his beloved only son and heir; Shakespeare had these Sonnets published himself. Theories are as theories only theories - yet Shakespeare's words are not theories at all - they are in themselves sufficient and still relevant even today.
I respect your opinion but I don’t think you understand how class worked in Elizabethan England. I mean that in regards to learning. Some of the lines of the plays refer to books that are were only in the possession of Oxford, his teachers and Lord Burghley. There were no public libraries. Can you explain to me how a commoner would have had access to those works? I am not being at all blasphemous when I say this but it would have taken divine intervention for an uneducated commoner to write at that level. You cannot judge Elizabethan England by modern times. Nor can you transpose modernity onto Elizabethan England.
‘R’o’’’s’ey
‘Rosy lips and cheeks within his bending sickle’s compass come.........’. Sonnet 116
‘Their Rosie-tainted features clothed in tissue.....’. (Weever epigrams)
Sonnet 116
‘Let me not unto....’
Double entendre throughout?
Do not wish to impute sordid ideas but they appear to be there....
Not very nice with the lads, although in fairness it must be said Bacon, the author you're looking for, was also guilty of the English vice, although he was nicer about it.
It's a shame that the 'Welbeck portrait', a poorly done _copy_ of a lost original, is often used as a reference - the 'Ashbourne portrait' (preferably viewed with its obscene over-painted pate cropped so it doesn't distract), rendered later in de Vere's life, almost certainly provides a far better idea of de Vere's visage and personality (although when he sat for it, probably well into in his forties, his face was unsurprisingly somewhat more care-worn).
It was originally a portrait of Hugh Hammersley. During the 19th Century, the bald pate was added and Hammersley's coat of arms covered over to make it look like Shakespeare. It was painted in 1612, long after De Vere died.
New sub, BINGE WATCHING, thank you!
I hadn't seen TH thrTee & HT, on column 3. It's just jaw dropping isn't it.
Alexander I love your video's an interesting theory about his chastity. Perhaps the answer could be more physical. I was looking at the biography of de Vere, could the injury sustained in the skirmishes with Knyvett have wrecked his family planning?
But the Knyvett duels took place in the 1582 and Oxford’s daughter Susanna was born in May 1587 so if Knyvett’s swash-buckling failed to prevent the conception of Susanna, how could it have prevented the conception of an heir in 1592?
@@alexanderwaugh7036 good point I missed that one. Thanks
Am I remembering incorrectly that DeVere denied her paternity at first?
@@flo-llama Yes. It was his first daughter, Elizabeth.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 That's a good point, yet may I make a suggestion?
If a man felt the need to have a male heir, and if, for whatever reason, he could not 'get' one himself, there was one recourse available in Mosaic Law: the Levirate Marriage.
"The Handy Bible Dictionary and Concordance" defines 'Levirate Marriage' as: "Jewish custom according to which when an Israelite without male heirs died the nearest relative married the widow, and the first born son became the heir of the 1st husband (Deut. 25:5-10)"
Granted, Edward de Vere wasn't dead in either 1582, 1587, or 1592 -- he died in 1604 -- so at first glance this Levirate Marriage business might seem to have nothing to do with his situation.
But, what if De Vere had, after some extramarital dalliance, acquired an STD, a malady which had 'deadened' his procreative 'member'? Is it not conceivable (pardon the pun) for a desperate man made 'lame' by venereal disease to justify having his "nearest [male] relative" provide the service of sowing seed to be raised as his heir?
As you say, Oxford's daughter Susanna was born in May 1587 -- but he had no way of knowing that the child would be a daughter when it was begotten (assuming he himself did the begetting). Improbable though it may seem, is it not possible that Oxford was 'dead' (i.e. impotent) and had had a male relation of his perform the deed of impregnation in his stead?
Similarly, if Oxford had been made 'lame' due to a viciously aimed sword-thrust from Thomas Knyvet in 1582 -- that is, if a venereal disease was not the problem -- then might not Oxford have had a surrogate impregnate Anne -- leading to the birth of yet another daughter, Susanna? Anne might not have even known that a different man had been with her, if a 'Bed-Trick' had been applied, and if the bed chamber had been dark enough.
Following this, with the death of Anne after this and his subsequent marriage to Elizabeth Trentham, your scenario of Oxford soliciting the surrogacy of Southampton with the fertile Penelope Rich to produce -- finally! -- a son to continue the Oxford line, makes sense of the evidence you've presented so magnificently in your presentations.
Yet I would maintain the possibility -- indeed, the probability -- that Wriothesley would represent Oxford's ideal surrogate if he were, indeed, Oxford's nearest male relative. I know you're not in favor of the 'Prince Tudor' theory -- or, theories, as the scenario presented in the disappointing film "ANONYMOUS" would have us believe that Oxford, too, was a son of QE1, as well as the father of her Royal Bastard Wriothesley. I don't believe that Oxford was -- or even could have been -- QE1's son, but I don't rule out him having fathered Wriothesley on her. Are there not hints of royal-language being used of the Fair Youth in the Sonnets?
Oxford, had he thought to apply the rules of the Levirate Marriage -- considering his own generative powers to be 'dead' (either from VD or from being unmanned by Knyvet's stab) -- would have been constrained, biblically speaking, to seeking out a surrogate who was his closest male relative. What would his options have been? One of the 'Fighting Veres', Horace or Francis? Why not either of them? Or, what about his bastard son Edward, born to Anne Vavasor -- or would he have been too young? Why would he petition Henrie Wriothesley to surrogate an Heir for the earldom of Oxford if there weren't already a secret family connection? In the eyes of God, wouldn't Oxford be having his actual son -- whom the world 'knew' to be another man's son -- beget a grandson for him to be raised as his supposed son and Heir? If such had been done in secret, then with Oxford acknowledging Henry de Vere as his own son -- despite knowing him to actually be his own grandson -- the 'official' history would consider the boy to be the son of Edward and his countess Elizabeth Trentham . . . though tongues might wag, and her status as a 'virgin' might be mentioned in a poem.
Edward de Vere was not a split personality, i.e. a rogue and a saint: he was a servant of the Establishment and very much a part of it, and flattery was the order of the day at court.
What morally wanting twisters they were. God cannot have inspired or been pleased with the means used to adopt someone else's child: in the case of John Dee, wife swapping; in the case of Edward de Vere, persuading a "fair youth" to procreate with one's mistress. By the way, when exactly did Shakespeare and the 3rd Earl of Southampton have affairs with John Florio's wife Avis?
Edward de Vere's Renaissance boast of being able to re-write the Bible in 6 days would certainly indicate he was Shakespeare. For him to have said the BVM was an adulteress and Joseph a cuckold is not just way out but clean contrary to the dogmas of early Church Councils and early Fathers and Creeds, and heretical.
As for the suggestion Edward de Vere took a vow of celibacy with the Knights Templar in 1590, they were perpetually suppressed in 1312 and replaced in Portugal by the Order of Christ. What Orders could there have been in England after the Dissolution under Henry VIII/ Thomas Cromwell, some restoration under Mary Tudor, and then the almost entire wiping out of the Catholic religion under Elizabeth I, after the Pope relieved her subjects of allegiance to her? The Freemasons adopted symbols of the Military Orders - perhaps the Templar seal depicting 2 Knights on a horse.
Interesting post, for which many thanks. With Vere, Dee, Bruno, Tresham I think we are looking at a lofty theology based on a Prisca Theologia inspired by Hermes Trismegistus, so I think it is hard to judge their attitudes and behaviours from a Catholic perspective without feeling negative. What I think needs greater study is the influence of Jewish and Egyptian thought on Oxford. A new thesis on Shakespeare’s hermetism is soon to be published which will be very interesting. I don’t subscribe to the Avis Florio theory of Willobie, but offer an alternative in the playlist ‘Shocking Points!’
@@alexanderwaugh7036 There is no sound or lofty theology that justifies sins of the flesh.
...and poor old Bruno, a very holy man, was murdered by the Inquisition. I quite understand that many aspects of Hermetism are abhorrent to Catholics, but I am not presenting here to advocate one side or the other. My use of the word ‘lofty’ was not intended as a compliment, only to give a sense of the hypostatic position of the prisca theologia in intellectual renaissance circles at this time.
Actually, the real author was Edward de Vere. Alas, what Mr. Waugh has produced, doesn't prove anything. People 400 years ago didn't produce shapes from 3 T's, out from nothing. The only sensible way of proving is finding visible (I MEAN visible) clues, connect them, explain them. But haphazard findings (ordering letrers in columns and rows) show your own thinking, not the thinking of the real author.
Just one minor example: three letters in a randomly arranged tabloid, in a randomly determined direction gives D E E. What on Earth does it prove??
If you study John Dee's Mona's Hieroglyphica, you'll find an contemporary example of an Elizabethan arranging letters into various shapes.
Placing text into grids of a set number of columns is a modified version of Giordano Cardano's innovations in cryptology. Dee spent time with Cardano in London in the 1550s, and de Vere prompted & provided prefatory materials for an English translation of Cardano's De Consolatione, which seems to have been the inspiration for the "to be or not to be" sililoquy in Hamlet.
Doesn't strike me as so far fetched that Dee and de Vere could've devised an encrypted text based on Cardano's methods and Dee's previous works.
Like the way you call out Alan h Nelson for being Fraudulent in his Latin translation
This is a great presentation.
Wait a minute!! You say he believed in “God”, but they name his son that was so important to his pride LORD BA’ALBEK!?! lol that’s a trip! HA!!!
Baalbek is an ancient shrine in lebanon.
Baal was just another word for lord until it became slang for demons sometime in the late middle ages
Gosh, what an embarrassment for Alan Nelson. I wonder if he'll be correcting thos errors in subsequent editions of his book.
Absolutely brilliant!!!
Thank you for sharing your work and process with us. In the numerological section of your presentation (18:50) the 14th column also has another bit inside it, especially as regards the De Vere line, because as the biblical verse states the number fourteeen 3 x and if you add those up, you get the number 42/6. !
This is amazing! Incredible work
Good show as usual, Alexander, and thank you. I should mention that although I'm subscribed to this channel and have in the past received notifications when new videos are posted, I did not get one for this issue. Merely FYI in case there is some glitch or Parallax is suppressing your work.
Google have stopped all notifications to my email address. Their argument is that a very small percentage of notifications are followed up. Quite why that should be a problem to them I don't know.
Your work is amazing., thank you for sharing.
The incredible intricacy of these devices is overwhelming to the uninitiated.
Can you suggest a video where you explain some of the techniques with simpler examples? tia
Dear Rob, thank you for your email. The work on the sonnets dedication encryptions is, alas, spread over many presentations, but I would recommend that you start with 'Where is Shakespeare Really Buried' parts 1-5. You will be very familiar with it then. The reason to why Vere is represented as the 4th T of 17 40 comes later in a presentation called 'John Dee's Secret Patron Revealed' while the use of '1740' in his signature is shown in 'Samuel Sheppard Knew...'. I hope you enjoy exploring.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank you for taking the time to make those suggestions. I am familiar with these kind of 'masonic devices' but have never seen them so beautifully explained. As you say the sonnet dedication is an amazingly intricate piece of cryptography. I was fascinated to learn of DeVere's patronage of Dee - makes a lot of sense... I remember seeing some simple examples of these devices in one of your videos - something about a Countess being a bit of a floozy, or similar? The simplicity of these devices makes them less incredible, they are easier to see, so I wanted to share them with some friends to ease them into the subject slowly? I will, with pleasure, watch the videos again and look forward to being able to buy your book? Sincerely Rob Shaw
So the sons/family have the manuscripts?
Brilliant as always . Thank you Alexander . Tip my hat to you Sir .
Amazing, amazing work. Well done Mr Waugh and helpers...
Dont you find it a bit "coincidental" his first name is edward and his last name contains the word dee? Referencing both edward kelly and john dee. I personally find this compelling. What are your thoughts on this please? Thanks for sharing.
Worthy of Sheridan Hope as apercu!
You didn't think, perhaps, that the fact that Vere was a murderer was some reflection on his moral worth? Or that he left the pregnant widow of his victim to her own devices?
It is frankly ASTONISHING that you go for the supposed sexual peccadillo and ignore the fact that in a morally just world, the Earl would have been behind bars for years. Or, under the laws of the time, strung up?
Or do you just think that an earl of his rank had the right to murder an underling?
Hi Vince - a few more 'murderers' among the poets and playwright's of the day, who did not get 'strung up' in the morally just world that you cannot ignore:
Ben Jonson, poet and plauright, killed Gabriel Spencer, actor, who had already killed James Freake.
Christopher Marlowe, poet and playwright, killed William Bradley; Marlowe was murdered by Ingram Frizer, Nicholas Skeres and Robert Poley (1593).
Thomas Watson, poet and playwright, participated in the murder of William Bradley.
John Day, playwright, killed playwright Henry Porter in 1599
Barnabe Barnes, poet, attempted to murder John Browne by poison in 1598.
George Turberville, poet, killed Robert Jones in 1573.
Poet and playwright, Thomas Churchyard (1580) [see Woodcock’s Churchyard p. 213, also named as spy for the French there)
George Whetstone, poet and playwright, attempted to kill a man outside Bergen op Zoom in 1587 but was himself killed.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Ben Jonson killed someone in a DUEL. That's not really the same thing. And I don't think that the defence of 'yeh but this other person murdered someone too' has ever cut much ice in a court of law.
This is the 'whatabout' defence, It cuts no ice. A murderer is a murderer even if the bloke across the road also murdered someone.
Of course, whether we should consider a writer's moral worth when commenting on their work is a tricky one. I'm always a little dubious about poets who buggered off to somewhere safe during world war two to save their pwecious little lives.
Column 3!, it's astonishing how much is hidden in plain sight even now. John Anthony mentioned a double cross on the extreme right on column 18 but I can't find a description of it. If we are having 18 as a notable column it screws up this Babylonian 60.
I also cannot find your description, which was the first of your's I watched, of the key on "read if thou canst". What's the video called ?
I've written a Cardano grid searching tool. It's really not a great deal of use other than testing any assertions. TTT is actually extremely common, you will be very hard pressed to find a block of plain text anywhere that does not contain this in multiple grids. There are actually nine grid widths on the sonnets that have a TTT, and as it happens they are all at the top or bottom of the grid bar one which is on the right. VERES is also exceptionally common. In latinised (U to V) text it turns up not just a lot but persistently. TTT and Vere in an upside down T is not a worthwhile test.
Roper's tantalising but incorrect analysis of read if thou canst is as important as the false baconian cardanos. I'm trying to explain why these are false, that they are inevitable, and your solutions, or rather Dee's encryption specifically on the Sonnets, are not.
Green's work on the front page has just blown me away. I am in the process of seeing how near I can get to Giza and verifying his numbers. I appreciate that bringing Kufu's pyramid into this while searching for the grave makes everything look a bit Von Daneken, but that is no ordinary circle is it.
Proving the cardanos is tough. I'm throwing vast texts at my program, I can test all possible grids (to a reasonable width limit) in the whole of the KJB and Shakespeare for anything you like in 15 minutes flat. An utterly futile procedure other than to get a feeling for what's remarkable. Individually most of these things are much more common than I had calculated. It's all about accepting that the rabus shapes themselves conform to a narrative imo.
Green's discoveries and assertions on that geometry are more easily proved, and independently of the dedication.
Very interesting post. Thank you.
I'm lost at the point when you organize the text into a grid. If the text were already in a grid, I'd be up for all the rest. Some of your other talks stress the importance of placement of text and size of the font, etc. So why is it ok to assume you can reorganize the text as it's printed?
Are there external corroborating sources that make it clear this was some kind of pastime? Other examples of learned people reorganizing texts into grids to find hidden meanings? If so, it'd help your argument to explain that, and source them.
Answers to your questions are given in many of the videos on this channel. If you watch the video "Incalculable Genius of John Dee" for instance I think you will get a better understanding of this grid, how it works, how it was found, how it fits into the pattern of cryptology in those days known as Cardano Grills etc. I would also recommend the series 'Where is Shakespeare Really Buried 1-5'. Do come back to me if you have further queries after that. AW
@@alexanderwaugh7036 thank you so much for replying! It's true, I haven't watched those particular videos yet. Will do! Thank you!
Cardano was a strange bird himself, and his book anticipates his own need for consolation. It is interesting that Cardano would write of sons, as one of his own was executed for murdering his wife (as the son learned or suspected that his children were those of another man) and the other Cardano himself disinherited for stealing from his dear old dad. Cardano himself was accused of homosexuality molestation of his students. If Vere took a Templar vow of chastity, I suspect it was of the kind that would abstain from sex with women only.
I think you’re correct. As you well remember, the Templars were charged with sodomy.
he was just bailing on going back home. its called "an excuse."
I never heard of this code. It really made my head hurt. Pretty amazing.
Thankyou…very interesting!
Very informative! Thank you!
dannnnng my nukka... u buggin sonne!
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.
Dear Anon. You have yourself in a terrible confusion of false facts and misstatements. Please read the errata anthology ‘Costested Year - errors, ommissions and false statements in James Shapiro’s ‘1606 The Year of Lear’(Amazon.com) before posting anything as goofy as at again.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Dear Alex, These aren't "false facts" at all but well-established references to the Gunpowder Plot. There are other allusions to the plot as well if you care to look objectively at the play instead of viewing it through the distorted lens of Oxfordianism.
I take that as admission that you are indeed ignorant of all the counter evidence. I do wonder why people like you bother coming on threads like these so wretchedly unprepared.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 The Oxfordian argument regarding the trials of Campion and Southwell and equivocation that predate the 1604 death of Oxford is unconvincing since there are simply too many direct contemporary allusions to the 1605 Gunpowder Plot -- the coin of the survival of King James and the serpent "innocent flower," Garnet "equivocator," Hugh Griffin "English Tailor" -- that contextualize the play, not to mention the obvious theme of regicide. Read An English Tailor and Father Garnet's Straw by H. L. Rogers.
How about 'Saint _and_ Sinner'?
Edward DeVere Signature. In another video you touched on the d that resembled a 1 and O that was the 0 for a 10 and seven hatch marks for 17. I wondered why his coronet had 4 pearls, which is a baron's coronet instead of 5 for the Earl coronet. The 4 pearls and the 0 in Oxford, is 40? So we have 1740 in his handwriting. The coronet seems to be the letters, V V u or I, with the 4th pearl to be off there stem one would find in the earl coronet. Then if you turn the signature to the right, the E in Edward resembles a triple tau to me. The middle arm should not be in a T formate, but instead a straight line. Elizabethian era letters were more formal and eloquent but the middle arm doesn't appear as a T from what I can find. If you take a mirror image of his signature and turn it 90 degrees, the original line with the seven hash marks becomes a Rho and the coronet as well, but where is the Chi? Perhaps I am dreaming. And why the heck did he change his last name from OxFord to OxenFord for his signatures? The greek Tau, Ox or Oxen, same meaning.....
Thank you for your interesting post. I should point out that an earl's coronet is identified by the height of it pearls not by the number of them.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I am most ignorant on these things, but the pictorials of the coronets show barrons with 4 low pears and the earls with 5 high pearls. The site "shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/rough-winds-do-shake-a-fresh-look-at-the-tudor-rose-theory" shows a hand scribed pictorial of the various coronets, unsure of the time period of these drawings. Also they mention in the description the signature shows the Earl coronet, but do not comment on the number of pearls which contradicts the drawings. Do they think it a mistake on Oxford part given the drawings. Also, the line under his signature represents 10 according to them, is that accurate? But that E in Edward is an H lying on its side. If something can be shown in Oxofrds handwriting or his know works about the triple tau and 1740 I think it would seal the deal.
Christopher I assure you that the number of pearls on an Earl’s coronet is not significant. His coronet is distinguished from a baron’s solely by the height of them - known as raised pearls. You can find multiple pictures of earls’ coronets with different numbers of raised pearls showing.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Please don't be offended if I am pushing to hard, i am an eager learner of anything not to do with my profession:) I was looking at the Quarterd arms of earl's during that time period. Robert Dudley, Ambrose Dudly, George Clifford, Henry Percy, Earls of Nottingham, Henry Herbert, Will Somerset and even Robery Cecil, the 1st earl of Salisbury. Those Quartered arms are toped with the earl coronet and 5 pearls on them. However, William Cecil (baron) and Baron Petre quarter arms are topped with baron coronets and have 4 pearls. If OxFord was writing a letter to the either Cecil and in light of what must have been a tense relationship would he not have used the higher number pearls to express hierarchy over them and as such the use of 4 signals a different purpose? Or are these quartered arms adorned with coronets a new design post Elizabethain era?
@@advancedfaces Not at all offended. Thank you for your persistence. I think I am guilty of not entirely understanding what you were getting at when I first responded. Knowing how the Elizabethan mind works I should not be at all surprised if the four pearls on the signature were relevant and, as you say, to work out 17 40 from that would be very significant. The standard earl's coronet has eight raised pearls of which five are commonly shown in heraldry but was this obligatory back then? I have seen Vere's arms displaying six, five, and sometimes three. Southampton's arms have three raised pearls on the Jenner engraving I show elsewhere on this channel. I will look back at the signature with a view to this. You may be on to something interesting here!
13:07 or "this is just the tip of the spear"
Keanu Reeves sent me here. He’s a big fan.
Keanu Reeves is not only a superb Shakespearean actor he is also a highly intelligent man who fully understands the complexities of the Shakespearean authorship question. I am delighted by this news. Thank you for relaying it. Did he recommend the video from his own site?
Saint no doubt
Where does 19 columns come from?
This I explain in ‘The Incalculable Genius of John” a video on this channel.
I am a thoroughly committed Oxfordian, but I have a question. Why did all the poets and writers continue to reveal in secret code that de Vere wrote the poems and plays. Why the secrecy long after his death?
Thank you for your query which has been answered many times and in many ways in these videos and in the comments below them. Thank you for watching.
Pope Clement VII died in 1740, he was also the Pope to prohibit catholics from joining the Masons. Mad that.
i could be quite mistaken, but I would imagine the vow of chastity as might have been practiced by the likes of De Vere would not exactly forbid sexual activity. Only that it would forbid a certain type of sexual activity - i.e. activity with anyone who was lacking true spiritual enlightenment.