A “Brief” Rant About the Oxfordian Theory of Shakespeare’s Authorship

shakeMost people know that I’m very much obsessed with Shakespeare.  I studied his work quite immensely in undergraduate and graduate school, and I still conduct research for my own personal endeavors.  I’m by no means an expert, while some disagree (aw, shucks).  But I can work my way out of paper bag when it comes to Shakespeare.

I think one of my biggest pet peeves is the authorship debate.  I’m open-minded to different theories as long as they can support their case with good research.  However, speaking out to question Shakespeare’s authorship without anything to support your claims infuriates me.  But at the same time, there is nothing better than debunking claims…

…especially when it comes to the Oxfordian theory.

For those of you who don’t know, the Oxfordian theory is the theory that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford actually authored Shakespeare’s works.  In fact, you might be familiar with a certain movie that came out last year, “Anonymous”, which is loosely based on this theory.  My problems with that movie can make up a whole other blog post (especially when they convey the “real” Shakespeare as nothing more than a bumbling idiot).

The Oxfordian theory has been rejected by most experts and scholars in the field. 220px-Edward_de_VereThere are obvious flaws to it.  There is no evidence, at least scientific evidence in carbon dating along with tangible proof, that there was any connection between Shakespeare and de Vere.  “Oxfordians” reject the methods that historians have used to make their case, and unless you’re “in the loop”, you couldn’t possibly understand how de Vere could be the actual author of Shakespeare’s works.

The Oxfordian theory especially loses when it comes to the plays and sonnets that were written AFTER Edward de Vere passed away in 1604. Keep in mind that Shakespeare passed away in 1616.   And not to mention that many of Shakespeare’s plays that were written and performed post-1604 had references to post-1604 events, after Edward de Vere died. 

King Lear was written between 1603 and 1606 and first performed in front of the court of King James I on December 26th, 1606.

Timon of Athens was first performed between 1607 and 1608.

Coriolanus was believed to have been written between 1605 and 1608, and the opening scenes of the play (the grain riots) are believed to be a reference to the Midland Revolt and the Inquisition of Depopulation of 1607.  An event that Edward de Vere could not have foreseen unless he could predict the future.

Antony and Cleopatra was written and performed around 1606.

Macbeth was believed to have been written around 1606 while the play’s first performance was in 1611.

The Tempest was written around 1610/1611 with its first performance in 1611 and is most famous for being Shakespeare’s last written play.

Henry VIII is probably the most questionable one when it comes to dating and whether it was actually written by Shakespeare (Oxfordian theory aside….Ben Jonson anyone?).  Most date the play to have been written around 1613.

And then we have the wonderful sonnets that were being written long after 1604.  Some are even dated to have been written up to 1621.

Wait…didn’t Will die in 1616?

Yes, he did.  And keep in mind that I am not bashing ALL authorship theories, just the Oxfordian because it is the most ridiculous and yet seems to have the largest following.  There are authorship theories that I will give credit to.  While I consider myself to be a lover of Shakespeare, I would be a fool to believe that Shakespeare wrote all of his stuff.  There is clear evidence of manuscripts and certain sections of the plays that are considered to be “un-Shakespearean.”  Well, we have to ultimately decide, what is Shakespeare?  We are dependent on centuries old documents and it’s hard to decipher what we really have that is authentic or not.

Back to topic.

Here is a list of theories that suggest Shakespeare was a fraud and my rebuttals against them.

This was inspired by Roland Emmerich’s video with his explanation as to why Shakespeare was a fraud.  Watch it first, and then read below.

We have no documented evidence of anything done in Shakespeare’s handwriting.

Sir_Thomas_More_Hand_DActually, yes we do.  We have his revisions he had done to the play of Sir Thomas More by Anthony Munday.  Sir Thomas More has been concluded that it was written by several authors with each author labeled with the name “Hand” and then a letter following the name.  There are about three pages of Sir Thomas More that are accepted as being written by Shakespeare’s hand, known as “Hand D.”  The handwriting was similar to the existing signatures of Shakespeare as well as similar verse structure as his other works.  And not to mention similar spelling characteristics that were deemed “Shakespearean.”

In reference to the six shaky signatures of Shakespeare, back then, penmanship was atrocious in general.  The Earl of Leicester, Robert Dudley’s, love letters to the Queen makes the doctors’ handwriting look like calligraphy.

Also, keep in mind that even know Shakespeare is now a famous figure, back in his time, he was a commoner.  And we rarely, if ever, have personal correspondence from commoners.  All we really have are some royal love letters because the Vatican got a hold of them somehow.

Shakespeare’s daughters couldn’t read or write.

Unless you were a wealthy woman, female commoners didn’t read or write and certainly did not attend school.  And let’s not forget that Shakespeare was very much absent from the lives of his wife, Anne Hathaway, and their daughters.

Shakespeare wrote about the aristocracy and showed he had extensive knowledge while Ben Jonson wrote about the people he knew; the common people.

First off, Ben Jonson was hardly the view of the people. He was not very well liked as a playwright and he is known to have been a jerk. Second, the only plays that dealt with the English royalty were the history plays which he took from Hollinshed’s Chronicles, he didn’t gain from personal knowledge.  Also, it was very common back in the day to write favorably about the aristocracy, and Elizabeth was known to be a supporter and patron to Shakespeare.  Write for your audience.  Also, Shakespeare did appeal to the commoners, the groundlings didn’t attend his plays because they were forced to.

Shakespeare doesn’t mention the death of his 11-year old son in any of his works.  How can a writer who writes from his heart and soul never mention this?

I believe sonnet #33 debunks this theory:

Full many a glorious morning have I seen
Flatter the mountain-tops with sovereign eye,
Kissing with golden face the meadows green,
Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy;
Anon permit the basest clouds to ride
With ugly rack on his celestial face,
And from the forlorn world his visage hide,
Stealing unseen to west with this disgrace:
Even so my sun one early morn did shine
With all triumphant splendor on my brow;
But out, alack! he was but one hour mine,
The region cloud hath mask’d him from me now.
Yet him for this my love no whit disdaineth;
Suns of the world may stain when heaven’s sun staineth.


Also, after Shakespeare’s son, Hamnet, died, his work took on a more darker tone.  For example, we have Hamlet, The Winter’s Tale, and King John.  King John contains unexpected moments of deep emotion, and scholars believe that was Shakespeare working through his emotions.  Plus, it’s obvious to note Hamnet and Hamlet are awfully similar.

Shakespeare demonstrates extensive knowledge about other countries and appears to be well-educated with an extensive vocabulary.

Just because I write a play about a mathematician doesn’t mean that I’m a math wiz.  Just because I’ve written a play about Japanese internment, doesn’t mean that I was actually there.  Not only that, Shakespeare had sources to draw from to explain his extensive “knowledge.”  But anyone who really looks at the text will see that it was written by someone who clearly hadn’t traveled outside of his home. I can write about China all I want, but you will be able to certainly tell that I’ve never been there. Also, when it comes to his vocabulary, let’s not forget that the Oxford English Dictionary uses Shakespeare as the origin of words that may have been around for decades prior.

The original plan of Shakespeare’s burial site had him holding a sack of grain, not a quill and parchment paper.


Outside of London city lines, a job in the theatre was viewed as inferior and easilydismissed.  The change in the burial site plans was only allowed by special license from the Master of the Revels. Of course he had another job to make ends meet.  That is still relevant to many involved in the theatre today; you need a second job to pay the bills.

The last will of Shakespeare does not mention his works, how can someone not care about their life’s work?  That must prove that Shakespeare didn’t write his plays.

That theory assumes that Jacobeans valued playbooks and intellectual property as highly as we do in our modern age, when they actually didn’t. In fact, in order to print a play and make money off of it, you didn’t need to own it. Look at the quartos of Shakespeare’s work and copies of the folio.  All you had to do was register it with the stationer. Ben Jonson seemed to be the only playwright back then who cared about the printing and ownership of his plays.

In closing, there are a lot of theories out there regarding Shakespeare’s authorship.  While there are theories with credibility, it is important to investigate and debunk the theories that don’t have tangible support behind it.  The idea that it was all one big conspiracy, like “Anonymous” conveys, is highly unlikely.  Not only would that be extremely difficult to keep hidden, but also, the fact that there is very little proof showing that this conspiracy actually happened is noteworthy.  Finally, it is important to note that while there are theories out there that potentially show that Shakespeare may have been a fraud, these theories are arguable and vulnerable to contradicting views, even more so than the argument that Shakespeare actually wrote his works.

12 thoughts on “A “Brief” Rant About the Oxfordian Theory of Shakespeare’s Authorship”

  1. Really enjoyed this-couldn’t argue with any the points you made-have you read don Paterson’s book on the sonnets-v. entertaining-only quibble i’d have is that ‘quite immensely’ you use near the start:]


  2. I agree totally with your conclusions, but sometimes you take “facts” for granted which may not be true. There is no reason to believe that “the original plan” of the Stratford monument was supposed to show him holding a sack of grain. Arguments of this kind are based on old and clearly inaccurate drawings of the monument in situ. There is no “original plan”. The question of why Shakespeare never alluded to Hamnet’s death is fraught with assumptions based entirely on our modern views of parenting and authorship. The question “How can a writer who writes from his heart and soul never mention this?” is so stupid I am flabbergasted: 1) why would you think that Shakespeare wrote “from his hear and soul”? Maybe he used his intellect. 2) Why would you think that a writer can only write about his life experiences? 3) In a world where infant mortality was commonplace, isn’t it likely that the death of a child was less traumatic than it is now?

    The Oxfordians and their ilk fall to bits because they are faced with an insurmountable pile of documentary evidence which clearly establishes that Shakespeare the Stratfordian, Shakespeare the actor and Shakespeare the author are one and the same. There is no documentary evidence of any kind supporting any other conclusion. Anti-Stratfordians have to resort to making things up (like the “original plan”), to abusive insults about Shakespeare’s intelligence, to silly and stupid emotional appeals, like the one about Hamnet’s death, and by holding the scholars who support the Stratfordian position to a standard of proof which nobody could possibly meet. That’s cheating, and they should know it.


    1. but why Shakespeare leave nothing after his death no plays no sonnets no poems no manuscripts .and why all his manuscripts were published by ben jonson in 1623


  3. the only reason that YouTube video got out there was to publicize anonymous… that is why they didn’t support Shakespeare- and had all the reasons to support oxford that they could find


  4. I too am a Shakespeare nut and have the education to back it including a degree in Theatre and in English Literature. I am interested in your proof that William Shakespeare WAS the author. There are holes in every theory INCLUDING that Shakespeare himself was the author; in fact, that theory seems to have the most holes in my opinion.


    1. I don’t disagree with you at all, and I did mention in the first paragraph that I’m open-minded to different theories. The proof that we do have that is that his name appears in poems and plays numerous times across different writings which all trace back to the Shakespeare of Stratford (especially in a time where a writer’s name associated with a printed play was not the norm), he was a company actor in the group that performed his plays (and I don’t doubt that his playwrighting resulted from collaboration with fellow actors), and plus…there are several plays that were obvious collaborations. Also, not forgetting that Ben Jonson wrote about him. So, there is proof that he existed as a person, and with the linking of his name with different theatres, consistent company of actors he was working with, etc. supports that he wrote the plays. It might take the drawing of a chart for some, but the evidence is strong that he did indeed write the plays we so cherish. Notice how I use the word “evidence” and not “proof”. Just curious, why do you think that the theory that Shakespeare was the author has the most holes? Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing your thoughts!


  5. Hmm. You say that Oxfordian claims lack proof, but then say things like, “..many of Shakespeare’s (post 1604) plays…had references to post-1604 events, after Edward de Vere died. Coriolanus was believed to have been written between 1605 and 1608, and the opening scenes of the play (the grain riots) are believed to be a reference to the Midland Revolt and the Inquisition of Depopulation of 1607. An event that Edward de Vere could not have foreseen unless he could predict the future.”

    How does “many of Shakespeare’s plays HAD references to post 1604 events” jive with “are BELIEVED to be a reference to…”? Either his plays make clear references to post 1604 events, or – you and others INTERPRET things in these plays to be such references. It’s okay if you interpret, wrong if Oxfordians do?

    I see merit to both sides of the authorship argument actually, and haven’t totally dismissed Shakespeare as the “real” author of his works, but do find some of the Oxfordian arguments to be compelling. How for example, would you “prove” the following, given that it deals with an omission? Shakespeare’s last will and testament – which we have – really does make no mention of books or manuscripts being owned by him or bequeathed. Why would he make a point of specifying who his BED was to go to, but not mention the cherished and valuable books or manuscripts that a 16th/17th century playwright and author would have had, even if but a few? Because he was a grain merchant and owned no books or manuscripts? 🙂

    Alterations made to his funerary monument after his death are also interesting. Initially, it depicted him as, guess what? – a grain merchant – holding a bag of grain. “Grain merchant” by the way, is also his only officially recorded trade or profession. Only later was the monument changed, with the bag of grain being replaced with parchment and pen! Quite an oversight, considering the “facts” that establish him as a well known and respected author and playwright in his own time. We don’t have all the answers, but there is certainly wriggle room – in both directions.


  6. Wanted to add: how are plays by “Shakespeare”, published after de Vere’s death, proof that de Vere did NOT write them? Because he was dead? Many authors, playwrights and composers have had works published posthumously, with unfinished works sometimes being completed by others. If “Will Shakespeare” was given credit for de Vere’s works before the latter’s death, it makes sense that the same would have been done after it, for the sake of the reputation of de Vere’s family, if not for him. Again, no “facts” here, just “what if’s”, but valid – and fun. 🙂


  7. OPEN LETTER TO KATHERINE CHILJAN (Author: Shakespeare Suppressed)

    Dear Katherine

    I hope you don’t mind me writing to you again. I recently listened to another of your YouTube videos, where you mentioned sonnet 125.

    Were’t aught to me I bore the canopy,
    With my extern the outward honouring…
    You say this refers to Edward de Vere, and your interpretation was…. “did it mean anything to me I bore the canopy”

    When actually that’s not what its saying. It reads… was it up to me I bore the canopy. In other words – was it my decision I bore the Canopy of Estate. And to take that further – was it my decision to bear the weight of office.

    Sonnet 125 ends with impeachment…. “When most impeach’d, stands least in thy control.”

    The question we should ask is… who bore the canopy (weight of office) and ended with impeachment (deposed)?

    Impeachment (deposed) happened only once in Tudor history.

    “Being in so royal estate as I was, my enforced honour blended never with mine innocent heart” (extract. Lady Jane Grey’s letter to her father in 1554).

    Let’s look at the very first sonnet… which actually goes some way in putting the sonnets into context, right from the start.

    From fairest creatures we desire increase,
    That thereby beauty’s rose might never die

    We know the word fairest (fair Youth) is used to denote a man in the sonnets. And then it’s followed by ‘we’ desire increase. The question here is, who is we? A man cannot desire increase (child) by another man. Therefore the word ‘we’ is emanating from a female perspective. Now it makes sense… From men, we ‘women’ desire increase.

    The next line tells us from where this desire does proceed – beauty’s rose. The word ‘beauty’ is used in the sonnets to denote a particular woman, and the word ‘rose’ informs us this is a woman of the Tudor (rose) lineage. The only question is who?

    There are 2 letters extant by Shakespeare, both to Henry Wriothesley (HW). In the dedication accompanying Rape of Lucrece, there is an unusual and quite unique turn of phrase, which is also found in a letter written forty years earlier.

    …To whom I wish long life, still lengthened with all happiness. (letter to HW 1594)

    …by whom my life should rather have been lengthened…. with life lengthened at my own will (Lady Jane Grey’s letter to her father 1554).

    What I am implying is predicated on the assumption she was not executed.

    As you may know I sent out information on the Stratford Monument decode some time ago, and I’m yet to receive a single creditable debunk to my findings. This is because it follows a logical and coherent process.

    The Droeshout engraving and Stratford Monument are an enigma. Many scholars have made observations in their writings that these two items if deciphered may contain the identity of the true author… and they are right.

    We can start with the Stratford Monument decode…

    The Stratford Monument isn’t difficult to understand, and in fact shows us where to look to find the name of the author – ‘whose name doth deck thy tomb’

    On reading the inscription the first question I asked, is there a name above the monument… and the answer is no. The monument is not a tomb it’s an effigy, a memorial to Shakespeare. So the question remains, where is the name that decks the tomb? If you look carefully at the Monument inscription you’ll see the second line (Terra) is indented. The question is why? It serves no aesthetic purpose, in fact it almost throws the line off at the opposite end… is there a reason for this?… We’ll come back to it later.

    On the first line we have the names…. Nestor, Socrates and Virgil

    Nestor is an aged monarch, already very old when the war began, he was noted for his bravery and speaking abilities. In the Iliad he often gives advice to the younger warriors… he is too old to engage in combat himself.

    Socrates the Athenian leaves no writing, someone else writes his stories.

    Virgil the poet, whose final 12 books looks back to Homer’s two epic poems the ‘Odyssey’ and the ‘Iliad’

    The odyssey is about someone’s struggle to return home after many years abroad. The Iliad was about a conflict caused by a woman.

    William Shakespeare used the plot of the Iliad as source material for the play Troilus and Cressida,

    But I’m digressing, none of that is really important

    What is important however is finding the person ‘whose name doth deck thy tomb’

    The way to go about this is to first ask yourself the question, what is a tomb? We know the monument isn’t a tomb… so where is the tomb? A tomb is a burial place and can also be called a grave, and should one have the misfortune to visit a graveyard, how does one locate a grave? You can’t go digging under the earth to check who’s buried where; besides it being illegal it’s time consuming and very hard work…. I’m being facetious. The logical approach is to look for the tombstone decked above earth, there you will find the name.

    And if the penny hasn’t already dropped, I have just told you where to look to find the name of the author… ‘whose name doth deck thy tomb’

    Graves are under the earth, names are decked above earth… look above earth and there you will find the name.

    And now you know why the word ‘Terra’ is indented. It serves two purposes; the first being a visual reference point and the second is to make sure the word above (IV DICIO) sits snuggly over earth (Terra) and nothing else, for it is the tombstone that sits over the earth, which covers the grave.


    IV = Roman numeral for the number 4

    Dicio = Sovereignty, authority, sway, control, rule, domain

    What single person can we collectively attribute these words to? = Sovereign/Monarch

    And if we are talking about a sovereign from the 16th century, we are talking about the Tudor Era


    (4th Sovereign)
    T ERA

    The Tudor Era…

    (1) Henry VII (2) Henry VIII (3) Edward VI (4) Lady Jane (5) Mary I (6) Elizabeth I

    And on my website I show the decode for the Droeshout Engraving, which tells us of a beheading on 12th February 1554 (gentle Shakespeare cut – so writes Ben Jonson)… and in the sleeves moving from left to right it divulges phonetically the person was left to write = surreptitious pardon.

    Why do you think the sonnets published in 1609; she was 16 when queen for 09 days. It’s the group’s way of acknowledging her without naming her.

    The first folio published in 1623; this date covers the 7 year period from the age of 16 – 23 when she is imprisoned and then secretly exiled till approximately 1560, when she reappears after many years abroad (as like the odyssey). And this is why the earliest allusions to the Shakespeare plays (Romeus and Juliet) are dated as you have said, circa 1562.

    And now you know the reason why the author had to remain a secret. You said it yourself, you can’t understand why Edward de Vere did not receive credit posthumously, surely after death he should receive recognition for the works but he does not. For the secret is far darker and damning to the monarchy should it be exposed. A monarch’s power is derived from the goodwill and trust of the people and should that trust be broken, it is to the detriment of those who wish to govern. And that is the great secret that underpins why they must be silent, in their praise.

    Lady Jane Grey returns under the protection of Queen Elizabeth, possibly at the humble request of her brother in law Robert Dudley, and is placed in the household of Sir William Cecil, it is here she teaches students such as; Edward de Vere, Henry Wriothesley and Roger Manners… each connected to Shakespeare in some way.

    Ben Jonson called Shakespeare the ‘Soul of the AGE’ then goes on to contradict himself by saying… ‘he was not of an age’… this is because the word AGE is not a period of time but an acronym of the 3 names in the sonnets. Anne Grey Edward = AGE

    According to Charles Beauclerk (author of Shakespeare’s lost kingdom) the Word Vere comes from the word Vera, which is sometimes associated with the Latin word Verus, meaning = True. I have looked it up and there is evidence to substantiate this.

    (Sonnet 41) Where thou art forced to break a twofold truth: 2x Vere

    Anne Cecil (Anne de Vere) is the Dark Lady of the sonnets, what follows in the next paragraph should tell us why she is so irreverent towards ‘beauty’ (Methinks no face so gracious is as mine – sonnet 62). You’ve said it yourself that Shakespeare uses the word gracious to describe high nobility or royal.

    Grey is the sovereign of the sonnets, also known as beauty. She resides and teach at Cecil house in the Strand…. And has an affair with one of her students, the Fair Youth. Yes, Edward de Vere is having an affair with a sovereign (Prince Tudor Theory) but not the sovereign you think, and there be the confusion.

    Edward de Vere is the Fair Youth and the image she draws on to form her first invention… Shakespeare.

    Henry Wriothesley is her son and heir… she tells us about his birth in sonnet 33.
    Born 1573, 3rd Earl of Southampton. And how her son was taken from her after one hour by someone she refers to as basest (not noble born) with an ugly rack (beard) on his face. I leave that to you to work out who she speaks.

    Venus and Adonis 1593:

    The story is essentially about an older woman’s love for a younger man. Some Oxfordian scholars interpret this as the Queen’s affections for Edward de Vere. Others believe Elizabeth is the mother and lover of Edward. For some that doesn’t sit very well as it would imply incest… but what if the scholars are right on both counts and Elizabeth is Edward de Vere’s mother and he is having an affair with a queen?…. can you see where the confusion might be, and how the incest dilemma is overcome if indeed there are two queens?

    Rape of Lucrece 1594:

    What is the story behind the title? The rape and death of Lucrece (Lucretia) essentially led to the peoples’ revolt and the overthrow of the Monarchy. What do you think is being said here? Could it be a coded message, a plot in the works to end Elizabeth’s reign? Yes, and we are informed when the plan will be executed. The death of Lucretia happens early during the 68th Olympiad, 508-507 BC.

    The date isn’t important but the 68th is – it tells us when they plan to proceed with the overthrow of the Monarch. It is to happen during her 68th year, this doesn’t mean when Elizabeth is 68…. once you’ve passed your 67th birthday as did Elizabeth on 7th September 1600, you enter into your 68th year. The incident with Lucretia happens early during the 68th Olympiad. And with Elizabeth, the Essex Rebellion happens on 3rd February 1601, approximately 5 months into her 68th year… the author has cast the die.

    Sonnet 10
    …Seeking that beauteous roof to ruinate which to repair should be thy chief desire.

    Here is an extract of the initial deposition of Lady Jane

    …Suffolk himself informed his daughter that she was no longer queen, which he did by tearing down the canopy of estate from over her head.

    Repair the Tear – the beauteous roof is the canopy of estate that which caused her ruin, the sonnet encourages Jane to repair… that which was torn. This can only imply to re-establish Jane’s lineage on the English throne after Elizabeth. As in the Stratford Monument with Nestor, she is too old to fight, but noted for her speaking abilities and often gives advice to the younger warriors (Earls)… And what follows is the Essex Rebellion (Tudor line complaint) 1601. Her son and heir Henry Wriothesley is sentenced to death for his part in the abortive act. Lady Jane comes forward and accepts the blame on his behalf and she is secretly sentenced to burn at the stake for Treason. Whether she is reprieved or not is another matter… but she tells us of her fate as was known to her then, when she wrote the Phoenix and the turtle poem (THRENOS) in 1601.

    Beauty, truth, and rarity,
    Grace in all simplicity,
    Here enclosed in cinders lie.
    Death is now the phoenix’ nest;
    And the turtle’s loyal breast
    To eternity doth rest,
    Leaving no posterity:
    Twas not their infirmity,
    It was married chastity.
    Truth may seem, but cannot be:
    Beauty brag, but ’tis not she;
    Truth and beauty buried be.
    To this urn let those repair
    That are either true or fair;
    For these dead birds sigh a prayer.

    The Temple

    The brags of life are but a nine days wonder
    And after death the fumes that spring
    From private bodies make as big a thunder
    As those which rise for a huge king

    George Herbert, 1633

    George Herbert (3rd April 1593 – 1 March 1633) was related to the 3rd Earl of Pembroke, who was associated with the publication of Shakespeare’s first folio in 1623

    A more in-depth explanation for the phoenix and the turtle poem can be found in the Shakespeare Unearthed document, which is available to download from the website: http://www.shakespeareauthorship.co.uk

    And finally, last but not least – Jack Kirby, co-creator of X-Men comics creates the characters Jean Grey and partner Scot Summers. They reside and teach at a school for gifted children.

    Jean Grey is an anagram of Jane Grey
    Scot Summers – shall I compare thee to a Summer’s day – a reference to the Fair Youth of the Sonnets.

    As you know Edward de Vere would sign his name Edward VII, which does suggest he believed himself to be a possible successor to Elizabeth. That’s until a ‘Scot’ (James VI of Scotland) was chosen by the Privy Council to succeed Elizabeth. And should people still not get the inferences, Jack Kirby goes one step further by assuming the pseudonym Ted Grey, = Edward / Grey = Fair Youth and Author.

    How does Kirby know?… well, he was probably told in the 50’s or early 60’s.

    Katherine, I am doing my level best here to give you and others your Shakespeare without equivocation. Edward de Vere is extremely important in the grand scheme of things. He is the Fair Youth of the sonnets after all but more importantly the persona she draws on to create Shakespeare. Edward de Vere is Hamlet, his wife Anne is Ophelia and William Cecil is Polonius. Jane is there in amongst them, she resides and teach at Cecil House on the Strand…. John Aubrey was right, Shakespeare was a teacher.

    This is what it is… the secret that could not be told.

    Kind regards
    Andrew Golding


  8. If Shakespeare the man was not Shakespeare the writer, this is perhaps the most massive conspiracy in history, spanning half a millennium, and taking in actors, writers, scholars, etc.
    Any theory that Shakespeare the man was not Shakespeare the writer simply does not hold up to any kind if scrutiny.
    That’s why Oxfordians and their sort shut you down when they’re challenged.


    1. NIce bit of projection on your part Stacia. The Oxfordians would be thrilled to be included in Academia, but the Stratfordians have sealed the doors of their ivory towers – they refuse to acknowledge the question at all in most cases. . They are so concerned about being exposed as fraudulent that they won’t reveal to undergraduates that there has been an ongoing debate over the issue going back to the beginning of the modern biography, i.e. the Authorship Question itself has been alive since the birth of modern research on the subject, some 200 years now. If Shakspere had a solid case, then the dispute would never have developed, much less continued to appeal to generations of smart, curious people.

      Oxfordians for their part no longer feel it necessary to engage with people who are the intellectual equivalent of Flat-Earthers. Stratfordians will not be convinced because their belief is based on faith, as it surely is not based on evidence, and Oxfordians have grown tired of chasing the same canards round and round.


Leave a Reply to muhen qasim kurde Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s