Discussion:
Arden of Faversham also by WS ?
Add Reply
marco
2016-11-14 15:08:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[interesting]

Two Australian literary scholars have used mathematical techniques to help uncover the hidden hand of William Shakespeare in an anonymous 16th-century play.

Using sophisticated computer modelling, Jack Elliott and Brett Greatley-Hirsch have shown that at least five scenes in the 1592 tragedy, Arden of Faversham, were penned by the Bard.



http://www.canberratimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australian-data-sleuths-link-shakespeare-to-anonymous-16thcentury-play-20161108-gsl5je.html

marc
marco
2016-11-14 18:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by marco
[interesting]
Two Australian literary scholars have used mathematical techniques to help uncover the hidden hand of William Shakespeare in an anonymous 16th-century play.
Using sophisticated computer modelling, Jack Elliott and Brett Greatley-Hirsch have shown that at least five scenes in the 1592 tragedy, Arden of Faversham, were penned by the Bard.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australian-data-sleuths-link-shakespeare-to-anonymous-16thcentury-play-20161108-gsl5je.html
marc
.
laraine
2016-11-14 21:45:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by marco
[interesting]
Two Australian literary scholars have used mathematical techniques to help uncover the hidden hand of William Shakespeare in an anonymous 16th-century play.
Using sophisticated computer modelling, Jack Elliott and Brett Greatley-Hirsch have shown that at least five scenes in the 1592 tragedy, Arden of Faversham, were penned by the Bard.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australian-data-sleuths-link-shakespeare-to-anonymous-16thcentury-play-20161108-gsl5je.html
marc
C.
John W Kennedy
2016-11-14 22:59:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by marco
[interesting]
Two Australian literary scholars have used mathematical techniques to help uncover the hidden hand of William Shakespeare in an anonymous 16th-century play.
Using sophisticated computer modelling, Jack Elliott and Brett Greatley-Hirsch have shown that at least five scenes in the 1592 tragedy, Arden of Faversham, were penned by the Bard.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australian-data-sleuths-link-shakespeare-to-anonymous-16thcentury-play-20161108-gsl5je.html
marc
I saw it some years ago; it is certainly one of the more believable
candidates.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Gary
2016-11-15 06:06:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by marco
[interesting]
Two Australian literary scholars have used mathematical techniques to help uncover the hidden hand of William Shakespeare in an anonymous 16th-century play.
Using sophisticated computer modelling, Jack Elliott and Brett Greatley-Hirsch have shown that at least five scenes in the 1592 tragedy, Arden of Faversham, were penned by the Bard.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australian-data-sleuths-link-shakespeare-to-anonymous-16thcentury-play-20161108-gsl5je.html
marc
The one reservation I would have about this is:

How many people are qualified enough to understand, let alone critique,
the "mathematical techniques" and "sophisticated computer modelling"
used by the researchers?

Lacking that opportunity to understand/criticize, basically most
everyone is being asked to accept these results on the say-so of the
researchers.

- Gary
v***@gmail.com
2016-11-15 21:55:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by marco
Post by marco
Using sophisticated
[sic!] this word sophisticated means diluted or changed from natural source
Post by marco
computer modelling, Jack Elliott and Brett Greatley-Hirsch have shown that at least five scenes in the 1592 tragedy, Arden of Faversham, were penned by the Bard.
Post by marco
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australian-data-sleuths-link-shakespeare-to-anonymous-16thcentury-play-20161108-gsl5je.html
marc
How many people are qualified enough to understand, let alone critique,
We do have a mathematician in this group, Dr. David Webb, who could be accused of having a chance to decipher these revelations, though he may have to dig deep for the source, since the journalist is not offering anything to work on.

The journalist also offers contradictions to this and that which he certainly is not aware of — but this too is a subtle matter.
Post by marco
the "mathematical techniques" and "sophisticated computer modelling"
used by the researchers?
Lacking that opportunity to understand/criticize, basically most
everyone is being asked to accept these results on the say-so of the
researchers.
We are to understand that the researchers have deployed machines to 'the frequency and patterns of words' which is at least a start, though the reporter, not necessarily the researchers, does not explain what such frequency of which words would indicate.

The reporter further confuses identification of the Author's 'signature' as it were by saying that

""There is a natural temptation with a towering figure like Shakespeare to imagine that they could only have worked alone. But he actually comes out of this as very much a team player," he said.

Professor Craig said that many plays of the time were written by teams, much like a writing team for a modern sit-com like Seinfeld."

Well — let's shoot the journalist first, and the Aussie Professors later, no?

Phil Innes
Post by marco
- Gary
Morten St. George
2016-11-16 04:04:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
How many people are qualified enough to understand, let alone critique,
the "mathematical techniques" and "sophisticated computer modelling"
used by the researchers?
Lacking that opportunity to understand/criticize, basically most
everyone is being asked to accept these results on the say-so of the
researchers.
I’ve noticed there was a sharp increase in the number of Shakespearean collaborations in recent decades, with four new ones added in this forum in just the last month or so. In my cynical way of thinking, this is easy to explain: all of sudden it is no longer necessary for Shakspere to have gone to school, nor to have traveled abroad, nor to have seen the inside of a royal court. His collaborators did all of that so he didn’t have to!

Taking a brief look at Feversham, I quickly found a likely correlation and wouldn’t be surprised if there were many more.

FEVERSHAM
Had chaste Diana kissed him, she like me
Would grow love-sick, and from her watery bower
Fling down Endymion and snatch him up :

SHAKESPEARE
Peace, ho! The moon sleeps with Endymion,
And would not be awak'd.

Since Diana was the Roman moon goddess, we are seeing here an almost certain instance of borrowing, that is, Shakespeare had sight of Feversham and used it to create some lines of text. Does this mean that Shakespeare wrote Feversham. No, not at all.

A Marlovian reportedly compiled thirty pages of illustrations of similar Shakespearean borrowings from Marlowe, and a Florian compiled many pages of illustrations of similar S borrowings from Florio’s proverbs and translations. Others have noted the influence of many ancient and medieval authors.

It seems one of Shakespeare’s most remarkable talents was absorbing the very best from all of world literature and reusing for his own purposes. Therefore it could hardly be surprising that he is the world’s greatest writer because he incorporated into his writings the best wording and ideas from many great writers who preceded him.

The only way that Shakespeare could have written parts of Feversham is if he reused his own material, which is doubtful in view of S’s inclination to borrow from wherever he could but it cannot be ruled out pending further study.

PS. Stratfordians who claim that the "moist star" is the moon can find a little support in Feversham’s "watery bower" but this has nothing to do with tides and everything to do with a goddess of the moon and wild animals.
A***@germanymail.com
2016-11-16 14:26:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by Gary
How many people are qualified enough to understand, let alone critique,
the "mathematical techniques" and "sophisticated computer modelling"
used by the researchers?
Lacking that opportunity to understand/criticize, basically most
everyone is being asked to accept these results on the say-so of the
researchers.
I’ve noticed there was a sharp increase in the number of Shakespearean collaborations in recent decades, with four new ones added in this forum in just the last month or so. In my cynical way of thinking, this is easy to explain: all of sudden it is no longer necessary for Shakspere to have gone to school, nor to have traveled abroad, nor to have seen the inside of a royal court. His collaborators did all of that so he didn’t have to!
Taking a brief look at Feversham, I quickly found a likely correlation and wouldn’t be surprised if there were many more.
FEVERSHAM
Had chaste Diana kissed him, she like me
Would grow love-sick, and from her watery bower
SHAKESPEARE
Peace, ho! The moon sleeps with Endymion,
And would not be awak'd.
Since Diana was the Roman moon goddess, we are seeing here an almost certain instance of borrowing, that is, Shakespeare had sight of Feversham and used it to create some lines of text. Does this mean that Shakespeare wrote Feversham. No, not at all.
A Marlovian reportedly compiled thirty pages of illustrations of similar Shakespearean borrowings from Marlowe, and a Florian compiled many pages of illustrations of similar S borrowings from Florio’s proverbs and translations. Others have noted the influence of many ancient and medieval authors.
It seems one of Shakespeare’s most remarkable talents was absorbing the very best from all of world literature and reusing for his own purposes. Therefore it could hardly be surprising that he is the world’s greatest writer because he incorporated into his writings the best wording and ideas from many great writers who preceded him.
The only way that Shakespeare could have written parts of Feversham is if he reused his own material, which is doubtful in view of S’s inclination to borrow from wherever he could but it cannot be ruled out pending further study.
PS. Stratfordians who claim that the "moist star" is the moon can find a little support in Feversham’s "watery bower" but this has nothing to do with tides and everything to do with a goddess of the moon and wild animals.
Art N
laraine
2016-11-16 18:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by Gary
How many people are qualified enough to understand, let alone critique,
the "mathematical techniques" and "sophisticated computer modelling"
used by the researchers?
Lacking that opportunity to understand/criticize, basically most
everyone is being asked to accept these results on the say-so of the
researchers.
I’ve noticed there was a sharp increase in the number of Shakespearean collaborations in recent decades, with four new ones added in this forum in just the last month or so. In my cynical way of thinking, this is easy to explain: all of sudden it is no longer necessary for Shakspere to have gone to school, nor to have traveled abroad, nor to have seen the inside of a royal court. His collaborators did all of that so he didn’t have to!
Taking a brief look at Feversham, I quickly found a likely correlation and wouldn’t be surprised if there were many more.
FEVERSHAM
Had chaste Diana kissed him, she like me
Would grow love-sick, and from her watery bower
SHAKESPEARE
Peace, ho! The moon sleeps with Endymion,
And would not be awak'd.
Since Diana was the Roman moon goddess, we are seeing here an almost certain instance of borrowing, that is, Shakespeare had sight of Feversham and used it to create some lines of text. Does this mean that Shakespeare wrote Feversham. No, not at all.
c.f. John Lyly's play Endymion, the Man in the Moon, first acted in 1588.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endymion_(play)

I must admit I'm not familiar with all of the mythology,
but he has a character named Cynthia rather than Diana.

I've heard Lyly was quite popular in his time.

He also wrote a play called "The Woman in the Moon".
Post by Morten St. George
A Marlovian reportedly compiled thirty pages of illustrations of similar Shakespearean borrowings from Marlowe, and a Florian compiled many pages of illustrations of similar S borrowings from Florio’s proverbs and translations. Others have noted the influence of many ancient and medieval authors.
It seems one of Shakespeare’s most remarkable talents was absorbing the very best from all of world literature and reusing for his own purposes. Therefore it could hardly be surprising that he is the world’s greatest writer because he incorporated into his writings the best wording and ideas from many great writers who preceded him.
And so did the other playwrights, it seems.
Post by Morten St. George
The only way that Shakespeare could have written parts of Feversham is if he reused his own material, which is doubtful in view of S’s inclination to borrow from wherever he could but it cannot be ruled out pending further study.
PS. Stratfordians who claim that the "moist star" is the moon can find a little support in Feversham’s "watery bower" but this has nothing to do with tides and everything to do with a goddess of the moon and wild animals.
I've found some info. on the humour of the moon...
Will share it when I have some time.

C.
A***@germanymail.com
2016-11-16 21:48:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by laraine
Post by Morten St. George
Post by Gary
How many people are qualified enough to understand, let alone critique,
the "mathematical techniques" and "sophisticated computer modelling"
used by the researchers?
Lacking that opportunity to understand/criticize, basically most
everyone is being asked to accept these results on the say-so of the
researchers.
I’ve noticed there was a sharp increase in the number of Shakespearean collaborations in recent decades, with four new ones added in this forum in just the last month or so. In my cynical way of thinking, this is easy to explain: all of sudden it is no longer necessary for Shakspere to have gone to school, nor to have traveled abroad, nor to have seen the inside of a royal court. His collaborators did all of that so he didn’t have to!
Taking a brief look at Feversham, I quickly found a likely correlation and wouldn’t be surprised if there were many more.
FEVERSHAM
Had chaste Diana kissed him, she like me
Would grow love-sick, and from her watery bower
SHAKESPEARE
Peace, ho! The moon sleeps with Endymion,
And would not be awak'd.
Since Diana was the Roman moon goddess, we are seeing here an almost certain instance of borrowing, that is, Shakespeare had sight of Feversham and used it to create some lines of text. Does this mean that Shakespeare wrote Feversham. No, not at all.
c.f. John Lyly's play Endymion, the Man in the Moon, first acted in 1588.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endymion_(play)
I must admit I'm not familiar with all of the mythology,
but he has a character named Cynthia rather than Diana.
I've heard Lyly was quite popular in his time.
He also wrote a play called "The Woman in the Moon".
Post by Morten St. George
A Marlovian reportedly compiled thirty pages of illustrations of similar Shakespearean borrowings from Marlowe, and a Florian compiled many pages of illustrations of similar S borrowings from Florio’s proverbs and translations. Others have noted the influence of many ancient and medieval authors.
It seems one of Shakespeare’s most remarkable talents was absorbing the very best from all of world literature and reusing for his own purposes. Therefore it could hardly be surprising that he is the world’s greatest writer because he incorporated into his writings the best wording and ideas from many great writers who preceded him.
And so did the other playwrights, it seems.
Post by Morten St. George
The only way that Shakespeare could have written parts of Feversham is if he reused his own material, which is doubtful in view of S’s inclination to borrow from wherever he could but it cannot be ruled out pending further study.
PS. Stratfordians who claim that the "moist star" is the moon can find a little support in Feversham’s "watery bower" but this has nothing to do with tides and everything to do with a goddess of the moon and wild animals.
I've found some info. on the humour of the moon...
Will share it when I have some time.
C.
Art N
Morten St. George
2016-11-17 03:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by laraine
c.f. John Lyly's play Endymion, the Man in the Moon, first acted in 1588.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endymion_(play)
I must admit I'm not familiar with all of the mythology,
but he has a character named Cynthia rather than Diana.
I've heard Lyly was quite popular in his time.
He also wrote a play called "The Woman in the Moon".
The historical background is becoming forever more complicated as new plays with possible Shakespearean ties come to my attention. Yes, the play Endymion, The Man in the Moon, would be better than Feversham as the source for Shakespeare’s singular mention of Endymion.

For my part, I’m now rejecting outright the Stratfordian conclusion that Shakespeare had a hand in writing the Feversham play. To my thinking, that play is garbage. One needs to go beyond mathematical calculations to determine authorship and look at such things as the conceptualization of plot, classical influences, and psychological depth all of which I find to be sub-Shakespearean in Feversham.

The Endymion play, on the other hand, if parsed out of its prose dialogue and into verse, does seem to come close to Shakespearean standards. It’s attributed to John Lyly, who was Oxford’s secretary. Interesting.

With plays like Endymion, it seems the playwriting precedents upon which Shakespeare built were better established than what I had previously thought.
Post by laraine
And so did the other playwrights, it seems.
I disagree. In view of the comparative scarcity of books in Elizabethan England, Shakespeare may have had more sources recorded by scholars than all the other Elizabethan playwrights combined. Access to John Dee’s private library, to William Cecil’s private library, and to John Florio’s private library of more than three hundred Italian and other foreign-language books, simply was not available to everyone.
Post by laraine
I've found some info. on the humour of the moon...
Will share it when I have some time.
I look forward to it. We could use some humour in this forum.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-17 11:52:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
For my part, I’m now rejecting outright the Stratfordian conclusion that Shakespeare had a hand in writing the Feversham play. To my thinking, that play is garbage. One needs to go beyond mathematical calculations to determine authorship and look at such things as the conceptualization of plot, classical influences, and psychological depth all of which I find to be sub-Shakespearean in Feversham.
When you are dealing with a true tale, classical influence tends to go out of the window. Arden was originally rejected by Stratfordians as not being by Shakespeare, ironically for the same reasons as you did, for being substandard in quality.
However the murder was real, he died in 1551. And of course you have the connection with his mother's place of birth. But to add to the list we have characters called "Shakebag" and "Black Will". However if you want to take the play out for not being as good as the others, then you have to remove Macbeth for the same reason. For the Arden play has the blood of the victim being ordered to be washed away, very much like Lady Macbeth saying "A little water clears us of this deed".
Post by Morten St. George
I look forward to it. We could use some humour in this forum.
Mutton! You are the laughing stock of this forum. A first class idiot if there ever was one!
Your head alone reminds me of the moon, not quite as white, but certainly shiny!! Could a bald head be your moon references in the plays? Bet you didn't think of that?

Mind you Larine seems to have gone past her sell by date too!

William Shakespeare wrote the Arden play get over it! Not any idiots you propose.
Morten St. George
2016-11-17 22:06:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
When you are dealing with a true tale, classical influence tends to go out of the window. Arden was originally rejected by Stratfordians as not being by Shakespeare, ironically for the same reasons as you did, for being substandard in quality.
For ages the anti-Stratfordians have been attacking Shakspere of Stratford on the grounds that he was a commoner and that nearly all the plays have something to do with royalty. Now, with Arden of Feversham, at long last the Stratfordians have a play that in every way looks like something written by an uneducated commoner, but that is hardly an excuse for any serious scholar to believe this play belongs in the Shakespearean canon.

If you would kindly cite a single instance of a sublime thought in Arden of Feversham, I will gladly reconsider. In case you don’t know what a sublime thought is, you need look no further than the first sentence of Laraine’s Endymion:

"MOST high and happy Princess, we must tell you a tale of the Man in the Moon, which if it seem ridiculous for the method, or superfluous for the matter, or for the means incredible, for three faults we can make but one excuse -- it is a tale of the Man in the Moon."

I’m fairly happy with John Florio as the principal architect of the tragedies and comedies found in the First Folio and with William Stanley as the principal writer of those plays. But it looks like there may have been still another hand involved in some of the plays and particularly in the Marlovian plays of which the Shakespearean plays are a continuation of the same project.

So, who was the third author? I don’t know but I can say this much: there is virtually no chance that any Rosicrucian would write and publish anything in his real name. It would be against the rules to do so. Thus, we can effectively eliminate people like Christopher Marlowe and John Lyly as contributing authors to either Marlowe or Shakespeare. This leaves us with Edward de Vere, or perhaps someone that few have considered such as Charles Howard of Effingham, patron of the Admiral’s Men.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-18 00:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
When you are dealing with a true tale, classical influence tends to go out of the window. Arden was originally rejected by Stratfordians as not being by Shakespeare, ironically for the same reasons as you did, for being substandard in quality.
For ages the anti-Stratfordians have been attacking Shakspere of Stratford on the grounds that he was a commoner and that nearly all the plays have something to do with royalty. Now, with Arden of Feversham, at long last the Stratfordians have a play that in every way looks like something written by an uneducated commoner, but that is hardly an excuse for any serious scholar to believe this play belongs in the Shakespearean canon.
It grieves me to think you know what Shakespeare's plays are about considering you have not read them. HOW DARE YOU ASSUME they are all about Royalty. That is a principal mistake of Anti-Stratfordians. They ASSUME, because there are Royal Images in them, that only an aristocratic person could have written them. Well that's bullshit!
I couldn't give a shit what scholars think. To me they are ALL as thick as two planks of wood. When the book was printed it carried the name of William Shakespeare. So it was written by William Shakespeare. The fact a couple of geeks have confirmed it shows how long it takes scholar's to drive a nail in their thick heads!
I was watching a TV documentary about the skull of Piltdown man and the fact it was a fake. But even though the chief faker called Dawson, used paint to age the bones, didn't stop the fake lasting from 1912 to 1950 in the academic community. That shows you how thick scholars are!
Post by Morten St. George
"MOST high and happy Princess, we must tell you a tale of the Man in the Moon, which if it seem ridiculous for the method, or superfluous for the matter, or for the means incredible, for three faults we can make but one excuse -- it is a tale of the Man in the Moon."
Endymion as she should well know is all about praising Queen Elizabeth to the sky. It's the kind of flattery that the Queen hated. The Moon being her of course and Cynthia again her! The play was performed by boys. And the Queen didn't think much of them either, though having a soft spot for kids, she would have never told them to their face. Marlowe loved plays, like that. But the Queen liked Shakespeare and his three actress and mixed cast. Hence why Marlowe says about not liking boys! He was extremely jealous of Shakespeare, for being a better writer, better with the women and having the Queen on his side.
Post by Morten St. George
I’m fairly happy with John Florio as the principal architect of the tragedies and comedies found in the First Folio and with William Stanley as the principal writer of those plays. But it looks like there may have been still another hand involved in some of the plays and particularly in the Marlovian plays of which the Shakespearean plays are a continuation of the same project.
So your stupidity continues. William Stanley - of course you are happy with him, he's not got a single play or poem to his own name to compare anything with!! With that pedigree you can attach every single book in Elizabethan England to him, with nothing to say you are write or wrong. Because he wrote nothing!
Post by Morten St. George
So, who was the third author?
The Devil dam thee black thy cream face loon!
Morten St. George
2016-11-18 11:54:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
It grieves me to think you know what Shakespeare's plays are about considering you have not read them. HOW DARE YOU ASSUME they are all about Royalty. That is a principal mistake of Anti-Stratfordians. They ASSUME, because there are Royal Images in them, that only an aristocratic person could have written them. Well that's bullshit!
I’m quite sure that I read somewhere that all the plays but one concern aristocracy. Having my own look at it, I see that the history plays were set in English royal courts, LLL was set in a Navarre royal court, Macbeth was set in a Scottish royal court, Hamlet was set in a Danish royal court, and Romeo and Juliet came from feuding aristocratic families.

The stark reality of the situation is that the Shakespearean plays are the product of a small group of high-ranking aristocrats who wrote about what they knew. Credit was given to Shakspere of Stratford only because of their Rosicrucian membership. Read their manifesto: everyone was obliged to maintain secrecy and no one could receive payment (which presumably includes glory) for services rendered, e.g., writing plays.

The Stratfordians, therefore, are not complete idiots. They were merely deceived by rich and powerful aristocrats who fabricated a wide range of books and documents to con them. But they (the Stratfordians) do seem to be lacking in common sense: it is hard to fathom that a Stratford businessman of doubtful education could have written plays of Shakespearean magnitude. He didn’t.
marco
2016-11-18 15:49:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
It grieves me to think you know what Shakespeare's plays are about considering you have not read them. HOW DARE YOU ASSUME they are all about Royalty. That is a principal mistake of Anti-Stratfordians. They ASSUME, because there are Royal Images in them, that only an aristocratic person could have written them. Well that's bullshit!
I’m quite sure that I read somewhere that all the plays but one concern aristocracy. Having my own look at it, I see that the history plays were set in English royal courts, LLL was set in a Navarre royal court, Macbeth was set in a Scottish royal court, Hamlet was set in a Danish royal court, and Romeo and Juliet came from feuding aristocratic families.
The stark reality of the situation is that the Shakespearean plays are the product of a small group of high-ranking aristocrats who wrote about what they knew. Credit was given to Shakspere of Stratford only because of their Rosicrucian membership. Read their manifesto: everyone was obliged to maintain secrecy and no one could receive payment (which presumably includes glory) for services rendered, e.g., writing plays.
The Stratfordians, therefore, are not complete idiots. They were merely deceived by rich and powerful aristocrats who fabricated a wide range of books and documents to con them. But they (the Stratfordians) do seem to be lacking in common sense: it is hard to fathom that a Stratford businessman of doubtful education could have written plays of Shakespearean magnitude. He didn’t.
.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-18 20:52:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
The stark reality of the situation
Sorry the reality of the situation is that a very few people include yourself have a theory which is not based on any kind of common sense, because you are an educated twit that went to university and learned nothing about real life along with the rest of them.

is that the Shakespearean plays are the product of a small group of high-ranking aristocrats who wrote about what they knew.
No they didn't. Because Shakespearean plays even around the royal plays incorporate all kinds of stories dealing with all the classes. If you argue that Shakespeare wouldn't have known about the court, then the aristocrats knew nothing about that of poor people. How could they?

Credit was given to Shakspere of Stratford only because of their Rosicrucian membership. Read their manifesto: everyone was obliged to maintain secrecy and no one could receive payment (which presumably includes glory) for services rendered, e.g., writing plays.

These plays having nothing to with any order. They are plays to entertain the Queen, after that the public.
Post by Morten St. George
The Stratfordians, therefore, are not complete idiots. They were merely deceived by rich and powerful aristocrats who fabricated a wide range of books and documents to con them. But they (the Stratfordians) do seem to be lacking in common sense: it is hard to fathom that a Stratford businessman of doubtful education could have written plays of Shakespearean magnitude. He didn’t.
Stratfordians are idiots, they are educated at Universities. That will make them idiots, even if they were not before going there.
However they haven't been fooled by anyone trying to deceive them. Just on the way they have interpreted facts. They have assumed various things about William Shakespeare. Applied rules about where he was and what he was doing and what he could not do. In that respect they are wrong.
This is where they got things wrong. Numbered:
1. Shakespeare was talent spotted when young by the Queen.
2. Queen Elizabeth was extremely beautiful.
3. William Shakespeare was in the court when he was starting his teenage years.
4. He married 3 times.
5. The sonnets were a joint venture between Elizabeth and Shakespeare.
6. The plays were written in a co-operative (live) style with ALL the cast members taking part with William Shakespeare as the "director". Not by some chap scribbling away in a room.
7. All the plays were written between 1580 and 1588.
8. The plays were re-issued later on for King James.
9. They were performed in the order set out in the works of 1623.
10 Queen Elizabeth fell out with Shakespeare in 1588, when Christopher Marlowe told her that Shakespeare was married. She didn't know he was married.
11. Christopher Marlowe had been having sex with Anne Shakespeare (his muse in his poetry). Him and Shakespeare argued and that's how the Queen found out.
12. Other writers commented on Shakespeare's life in plays of their own. In any plays dated after 1588. Including the above events.
13. Shakespeare had a reputation for making babies. Aristocratic marriages were arranged (property deals). So fathering their children, was easy to arrange by having the acting company play the house of the Lord.
14. Most of the aristocratic families even have descendants alive today that clearly look like William Shakespeare. That includes the Earl of Oxford.
15. King James was infertile. So had William Shakespeare impregnate his wife Anne of Denmark. Therefor the Royal Family of the UK are descended from William Shakespeare, plus even the present Queen looked like William when she was younger.

Is that enough FACTS to convince you of William Shakespeare of Stratford?
Or you could also accept the fact that I was William Shakespeare of Stratford in a previous life and that you are arguing with the guy you say never existed!!
If that doesn't show you how stupid you are Mutton, I don't know what will!!!
Morten St. George
2016-11-19 00:59:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
1. Shakespeare was talent spotted when young by the Queen.
2. Queen Elizabeth was extremely beautiful.
3. William Shakespeare was in the court when he was starting his teenage years.
4. He married 3 times.
5. The sonnets were a joint venture between Elizabeth and Shakespeare.
6. The plays were written in a co-operative (live) style with ALL the cast members taking part with William Shakespeare as the "director". Not by some chap scribbling away in a room.
7. All the plays were written between 1580 and 1588.
8. The plays were re-issued later on for King James.
9. They were performed in the order set out in the works of 1623.
10 Queen Elizabeth fell out with Shakespeare in 1588, when Christopher Marlowe told her that Shakespeare was married. She didn't know he was married.
11. Christopher Marlowe had been having sex with Anne Shakespeare (his muse in his poetry). Him and Shakespeare argued and that's how the Queen found out.
12. Other writers commented on Shakespeare's life in plays of their own. In any plays dated after 1588. Including the above events.
13. Shakespeare had a reputation for making babies. Aristocratic marriages were arranged (property deals). So fathering their children, was easy to arrange by having the acting company play the house of the Lord.
14. Most of the aristocratic families even have descendants alive today that clearly look like William Shakespeare. That includes the Earl of Oxford.
15. King James was infertile. So had William Shakespeare impregnate his wife Anne of Denmark. Therefor the Royal Family of the UK are descended from William Shakespeare, plus even the present Queen looked like William when she was younger.
Is that enough FACTS to convince you of William Shakespeare of Stratford?
It was reported that, during the American presidential campaign, the female candidate hired an army of internet surfers to spam every blog or forum post that was critical of her. I trust the Stratfordians are paying you well.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-19 15:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Is that enough FACTS to convince you of William Shakespeare of Stratford?
It was reported that, during the American presidential campaign, the female candidate hired an army of internet surfers to spam every blog or forum post that was critical of her. I trust the Stratfordians are paying you well.
Is that the best you can come up with?
You are so bloody useless that you see the TV news and believe it!
I would have thought that my 15 examples would have convinced you of one thing that I am no more accepted for my views by your so called Stratfordians as you are.
They would never accept my number 5 as by two writers, one being Elizabeth. In fact I recall you have more in common with them on that subject, as you simply think that the writer of the sonnets just wrote all the sonnets, himself.
In many ways you Mutton are more Stratfordian than I am. For you accept their timeline of events in the plays and when they are written. In doing so, they have conned you. Without even wanting to do so by making you reject their fairy story of Shakespeare, which of course you can see is full of holes. But instead of using common sense you have gone down the fantasy route and look around for candidates and theories to fill the gaps.
As long there are idiots like you, nobody will be accepted who comes up with the real truth about Shakespeare. If I was like you, which I am not, I would be convinced the Stratfordians were feeding you stuff, to hide the real William Shakespeare. It doesn't for example look good to have aristocratic and Royal people descended from a poorly educated country boy from Stratford don't you think?

They can if they want pay me, it will be better than the £65 a week I currently live on.
Morten St. George
2016-11-20 05:57:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
In many ways you Mutton are more Stratfordian than I am. For you accept their timeline of events in the plays and when they are written.
I suspect the Stratfordians were deceived by backdated quartos and the falsification of performance records, which were arranged to make it credible that all the plays were written by someone who died in 1616. But whereas you think the plays were written earlier, I think it’s common sense that plays were being written and revised right up until the time the First Folio went to press. That’s what best explains the delay. And it looks like at least one of the original authors survived to make further revisions for the Second Folio of 1632.

Enough books from the late 16th and early 17th century have survived to make it theoretically possible to prove whether or not Shakespeare’s quartos are genuine for the date given on the cover because printers would typically rearrange and reuse the same movable type for many publications. Thus, microscopic analysis of the printed letters would enable forensic experts to pinpoint the true date of the quartos (and who really printed them) by finding that the same movable type was used for extraneous publications having no need to falsify the date.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
They can if they want pay me, it will be better than the £65 a week I currently live on.
That’s more than I made working full time in London back in the early 1970s.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-20 17:48:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
In many ways you Mutton are more Stratfordian than I am. For you accept their timeline of events in the plays and when they are written.
I suspect the Stratfordians were deceived by backdated quartos and the falsification of performance records, which were arranged to make it credible that all the plays were written by someone who died in 1616. But whereas you think the plays were written earlier, I think it’s common sense that plays were being written and revised right up until the time the First Folio went to press. That’s what best explains the delay.
The delay was caused by Anne Shakespeare being alive. She would have followed her husband's wishes that the no further works of his were published. When she died the same year there was nothing to stop them.

And it looks like at least one of the original authors survived to make further revisions for the Second Folio of 1632.

Not an author, but several of the people who knew William Shakespeare. You don't need an author around to publish plays that were already performed. They are not novels still to be written. Anyone who knew how the play went could have altered it. They had to be corrected anyway as the law was changing from when the plays were first performed in the 1580's.
Post by Morten St. George
Enough books from the late 16th and early 17th century have survived to make it theoretically possible to prove whether or not Shakespeare’s quartos are genuine for the date given on the cover because printers would typically rearrange and reuse the same movable type for many publications. Thus, microscopic analysis of the printed letters would enable forensic experts to pinpoint the true date of the quartos (and who really printed them) by finding that the same movable type was used for extraneous publications having no need to falsify the date.
Stop it with the forensic crap. It would show no changes to the dating of any of the book and would simply waste money.
Post by Morten St. George
That’s more than I made working full time in London back in the early 1970s.
As Merlin's apprentice presumably?
You should work for Voldermort, he will pay better. Well he would have, if Harry Potter hadn't finished him off!
Morten St. George
2016-11-20 21:21:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Stop it with the forensic crap. It would show no changes to the dating of any of the book and would simply waste money.
What are you afraid of? If you would kindly provide the books, I’m sure we can find some volunteers among the anti-Stratfordians to do the work for free. Note that, unlike radiocarbon dating, the analysis I suggest causes absolutely no damage to the books.

As I noted in another thread, Shakespeare (and/or company) somehow managed to hire 26 publishers and 24 printers to publish his stuff. Why so many? Was he too stupid to do a multiple-book bargain deal with just one or two of them? Did he refuse to pay them, obliging him to change publishers and printers at every turn? Did he violently argue with every publisher and printer forcing them to tell him to get lost when it came to the next project?

I have an idea: Why don’t you point us to the book catalogues of Shakespeare’s booksellers and printers so that we can confirm when the quartos were printed and sold? Just the other day I noticed that a Dutch printer recorded in his catalogues roughly fifty English-language books that he printed between 1587 and 1616. Surely the English printers and booksellers also had catalogues, no?

Early English Books Online can help us find other books printed by Shakespeare’s alleged printers, giving us a good place to begin forensic work. I’d also recommend that the quartos be tested against books coming out of that Puritan press over in the Netherlands. That’s where Giovanna Graia was printed.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-20 23:12:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Stop it with the forensic crap. It would show no changes to the dating of any of the book and would simply waste money.
What are you afraid of? If you would kindly provide the books, I’m sure we can find some volunteers among the anti-Stratfordians to do the work for free. Note that, unlike radiocarbon dating, the analysis I suggest causes absolutely no damage to the books.
I have NO books or documents to let amateurs mess around with. Those that have probably have done tests already if they were purchased or obtained from other sources. Many of the documents you want testing have never left the places they were first in, or have a documented trail that means that they are genuine articles.
Post by Morten St. George
As I noted in another thread, Shakespeare (and/or company) somehow managed to hire 26 publishers and 24 printers to publish his stuff. Why so many? Was he too stupid to do a multiple-book bargain deal with just one or two of them? Did he refuse to pay them, obliging him to change publishers and printers at every turn? Did he violently argue with every publisher and printer forcing them to tell him to get lost when it came to the next project?
I have explained this many times to you and you bring up the same points. Publishing was not like it is today. Anyone could take a manuscript to a printer come publisher, who were strictly controlled by the state. They were paid a ONE OFF flat fee and that was it. They had NO further control of what happened to the publication. In the case of the poem Venus and Adonis. They only one to have a dedication by Shakespeare. It's likely that he took the pages to the publisher of the first edition and was paid a single fee. Which was probably not very much, considering how well it sold later on. Any other printing of it was done by the publisher and in the case of Venus it was sold onwards to a third party. Shakespeare had nothing to do with any sales of it.

I will make it simpler for you to understand.
Morten Saint writes 4 stories about Merlin.
Merlin 1 he sells to Graham for £100. Graham prints it and publishers it exactly how he likes it to look even changing words on it, making £10,000 out it, ALL of which goes to Graham.
Merlin 2, he gives a Manuscript copy to Marco, because Marco says he likes it. Marco sells it to Graham for £90. Who then prints it making £10,000 from it. Morten gets nothing!
Merlin 3 Morten gives to Lorraine, she sells it to Graham for £50, Graham prints it but only makes £150 out of it. So he sells on to somebody else for £90 pounds and they make £100,000 out of it. Morten again gets nothing.
Merlin 4 is never published. But when Morten dies Graham is given it and prints it. However the authorities discover that it contains illegal references. They have Graham's hands chopped off. Then destroy his printing machine. All copies are destroyed of Merlin four, but a few people have seen it and mention it 5 years after it was destroyed.
400 years later a idiot from Oxford discovers the four merlin books and try's to prove they were written by Shakespeare of Stratford and not by Morten at all.
marco
2016-11-21 15:40:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Stop it with the forensic crap. It would show no changes to the dating of any of the book and would simply waste money.
What are you afraid of? If you would kindly provide the books, I’m sure we can find some volunteers among the anti-Stratfordians to do the work for free. Note that, unlike radiocarbon dating, the analysis I suggest causes absolutely no damage to the books.
I have NO books or documents to let amateurs mess around with. Those that have probably have done tests already if they were purchased or obtained from other sources. Many of the documents you want testing have never left the places they were first in, or have a documented trail that means that they are genuine articles.
Post by Morten St. George
As I noted in another thread, Shakespeare (and/or company) somehow managed to hire 26 publishers and 24 printers to publish his stuff. Why so many? Was he too stupid to do a multiple-book bargain deal with just one or two of them? Did he refuse to pay them, obliging him to change publishers and printers at every turn? Did he violently argue with every publisher and printer forcing them to tell him to get lost when it came to the next project?
I have explained this many times to you and you bring up the same points. Publishing was not like it is today. Anyone could take a manuscript to a printer come publisher, who were strictly controlled by the state. They were paid a ONE OFF flat fee and that was it. They had NO further control of what happened to the publication. In the case of the poem Venus and Adonis. They only one to have a dedication by Shakespeare. It's likely that he took the pages to the publisher of the first edition and was paid a single fee. Which was probably not very much, considering how well it sold later on. Any other printing of it was done by the publisher and in the case of Venus it was sold onwards to a third party. Shakespeare had nothing to do with any sales of it.
I will make it simpler for you to understand.
Morten Saint writes 4 stories about Merlin.
Merlin 1 he sells to Graham for £100. Graham prints it and publishers it exactly how he likes it to look even changing words on it, making £10,000 out it, ALL of which goes to Graham.
Merlin 2, he gives a Manuscript copy to Marco, because Marco says he likes it. Marco sells it to Graham for £90. Who then prints it making £10,000 from it. Morten gets nothing!
Merlin 3 Morten gives to Lorraine, she sells it to Graham for £50, Graham prints it but only makes £150 out of it. So he sells on to somebody else for £90 pounds and they make £100,000 out of it. Morten again gets nothing.
Merlin 4 is never published. But when Morten dies Graham is given it and prints it. However the authorities discover that it contains illegal references. They have Graham's hands chopped off. Then destroy his printing machine. All copies are destroyed of Merlin four, but a few people have seen it and mention it 5 years after it was destroyed.
400 years later a idiot from Oxford discovers the four merlin books and try's to prove they were written by Shakespeare of Stratford and not by Morten at all.
.
A***@germanymail.com
2016-11-21 19:27:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Stop it with the forensic crap. It would show no changes to the dating of any of the book and would simply waste money.
What are you afraid of? If you would kindly provide the books, I’m sure we can find some volunteers among the anti-Stratfordians to do the work for free. Note that, unlike radiocarbon dating, the analysis I suggest causes absolutely no damage to the books.
I have NO books or documents to let amateurs mess around with. Those that have probably have done tests already if they were purchased or obtained from other sources. Many of the documents you want testing have never left the places they were first in, or have a documented trail that means that they are genuine articles.
Post by Morten St. George
As I noted in another thread, Shakespeare (and/or company) somehow managed to hire 26 publishers and 24 printers to publish his stuff. Why so many? Was he too stupid to do a multiple-book bargain deal with just one or two of them? Did he refuse to pay them, obliging him to change publishers and printers at every turn? Did he violently argue with every publisher and printer forcing them to tell him to get lost when it came to the next project?
I have explained this many times to you and you bring up the same points. Publishing was not like it is today. Anyone could take a manuscript to a printer come publisher, who were strictly controlled by the state. They were paid a ONE OFF flat fee and that was it. They had NO further control of what happened to the publication. In the case of the poem Venus and Adonis. They only one to have a dedication by Shakespeare. It's likely that he took the pages to the publisher of the first edition and was paid a single fee. Which was probably not very much, considering how well it sold later on. Any other printing of it was done by the publisher and in the case of Venus it was sold onwards to a third party. Shakespeare had nothing to do with any sales of it.
I will make it simpler for you to understand.
Morten Saint writes 4 stories about Merlin.
Merlin 1 he sells to Graham for £100. Graham prints it and publishers it exactly how he likes it to look even changing words on it, making £10,000 out it, ALL of which goes to Graham.
Merlin 2, he gives a Manuscript copy to Marco, because Marco says he likes it. Marco sells it to Graham for £90. Who then prints it making £10,000 from it. Morten gets nothing!
Merlin 3 Morten gives to Lorraine, she sells it to Graham for £50, Graham prints it but only makes £150 out of it. So he sells on to somebody else for £90 pounds and they make £100,000 out of it. Morten again gets nothing.
Merlin 4 is never published. But when Morten dies Graham is given it and prints it. However the authorities discover that it contains illegal references. They have Graham's hands chopped off. Then destroy his printing machine. All copies are destroyed of Merlin four, but a few people have seen it and mention it 5 years after it was destroyed.
400 years later a idiot from Oxford discovers the four merlin books and try's to prove they were written by Shakespeare of Stratford and not by Morten at all.
.
Art N
Morten St. George
2016-11-22 07:06:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I will make it simpler for you to understand.
Morten Saint writes 4 stories about Merlin.
Merlin 1 he sells to Graham for £100. Graham prints it and publishers it exactly how he likes it to look even changing words on it, making £10,000 out it, ALL of which goes to Graham.
Merlin 2, he gives a Manuscript copy to Marco, because Marco says he likes it. Marco sells it to Graham for £90. Who then prints it making £10,000 from it. Morten gets nothing!
Merlin 3 Morten gives to Lorraine, she sells it to Graham for £50, Graham prints it but only makes £150 out of it. So he sells on to somebody else for £90 pounds and they make £100,000 out of it. Morten again gets nothing.
Merlin 4 is never published. But when Morten dies Graham is given it and prints it. However the authorities discover that it contains illegal references. They have Graham's hands chopped off. Then destroy his printing machine. All copies are destroyed of Merlin four, but a few people have seen it and mention it 5 years after it was destroyed.
400 years later a idiot from Oxford discovers the four merlin books and try's to prove they were written by Shakespeare of Stratford and not by Morten at all.
Graham, if it were true that Shakspere of Stratford had 26 publishers, 24 printers, and an unknown number of collaborators, there would be no authorship debate today because the evidence on his behalf would be overwhelming. Someone who published and sold two excellent poems, the sonnets and more than a dozen plays during his lifetime would have had to become well-known, widely talked about, and widely mentioned in print or correspondence, but he wasn’t.

This was the Renaissance, not the Dark Ages. Meticulous civil records were kept. People wrote and kept letters. People wrote and kept diaries. Where is Shakspere mentioned in John Dee’s diary? Dee seems to have known and met pretty much everybody. Can you name any pre-1616 letter or diary that refers to Shakspere as a writer? Who claims, before 1616, to have known him personally? Prior to 1616, was any publication dedicated to him?

I’m afraid the documentary evidence for Shakespeare is inadequate, that is, a couple of books and Stationers’ Registries are too few in number to stand beyond suspicion of forgery. On the forgery front, we find precedents (the Nostradamus almanacs) and motive for backdating (to turn attention away from a brotherhood sworn to secrecy). It is very unlikely that quartos (with Shakespeare’s name on the cover) were ever sold to the public during Shakspere’s lifetime.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-22 12:53:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Graham, if it were true that Shakspere of Stratford had 26 publishers, 24 printers, and an unknown number of collaborators, there would be no authorship debate today because the evidence on his behalf would be overwhelming.
But it isn't true, so there is as you say an authorship debate!

Someone who published and sold two excellent poems, the sonnets and more than a dozen plays during his lifetime would have had to become well-known, widely talked about, and widely mentioned in print or correspondence, but he wasn’t.

Well he was. You like the Stratfordians are looking at the wrong timeline. He's well known about in the theatre world. But because the Stratfordians date Shakespeare to being in London after 1590, they think he copies the work of many poets and play writers of the earlier period. When in fact they have already seen his and copy HIS work. They also write about his life and what's going on. For example the fact that Christopher Marlowe had been shagging his wife Anne. And that Shakespeare caught them in the best bed together. That is why they are obsessed with "cuckold" men in the plays they write. Something many historians are confused about but have come to that conclusion.
Post by Morten St. George
This was the Renaissance, not the Dark Ages. Meticulous civil records were kept. People wrote and kept letters. People wrote and kept diaries. Where is Shakspere mentioned in John Dee’s diary? Dee seems to have known and met pretty much everybody. Can you name any pre-1616 letter or diary that refers to Shakspere as a writer? Who claims, before 1616, to have known him personally? Prior to 1616, was any publication dedicated to him?
There's is evidence of that too, but when it's brought up you claim it's a fake.
Post by Morten St. George
I’m afraid the documentary evidence for Shakespeare is inadequate, that is, a couple of books and Stationers’ Registries are too few in number to stand beyond suspicion of forgery.
There is no suspicion of forgery in any of them. Besides as I said before they reveal nothing about how money plays were produced for the stage only. A lot more than went to print that is for certain. I can say for certain that there were over 600 Shakespeare plays. So what's left is a fraction of what was made.
On the forgery front, we find precedents (the Nostradamus almanacs)
"WE" strike that as "YOU". And that you haven't convinced anyone that the Nostradamus papers were forged.
and motive for backdating (to turn attention away from a brotherhood sworn to secrecy).
Silly theory based on a secret organisation, by it's very nature you can attach anything too, which of course then goes around drawing attention to itself by producing commercial publications that can be read by anyone who can read.
It is very unlikely that quartos (with Shakespeare’s name on the cover) were ever sold to the public during Shakspere’s lifetime.
Easily dismissed due to the fact for a word that the Art World loves. Which is "providence". And the fact that quartos were sold and turn up in the libraries of big mansion houses, some of which are still there. And have been since they were purchased at the time of Shakespeare.
Morten St. George
2016-11-22 14:37:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
"WE" strike that as "YOU". And that you haven't convinced anyone that the Nostradamus papers were forged.
It is true that I have not provided evidence of Nostradamus backdating in this forum (which concerns Shakespeare) but I have done so on my French-language website. The French were conned by false dates placed on Nostradamus’ prophecies and almanacs just like the English were conned by false dates placed on Shakespeare’s quartos. People at large have peanut brains, unable to imagine that anyone would have motive to deceive them.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Easily dismissed due to the fact for a word that the Art World loves. Which is "providence". And the fact that quartos were sold and turn up in the libraries of big mansion houses, some of which are still there. And have been since they were purchased at the time of Shakespeare.
If we are to believe that Shakespeare’s quartos were sold and purchased during Shakspere’s lifetime, then we would expect to find:

a) bookseller and printer records where Shakespeare’s quartos (the ones that display the name ‘Shakespeare’ on the cover) are listed, and

b) comments about these quartos in the letters, diaries, or publications of people who had read those quartos prior to 1616.

I found none of the above in my research (albeit limited) but you claim to have found them in the mansion houses of Shakespearean aristocrats. Which aristocrats? Please name a few of them and the date they purchased Shakespeare’s quartos.

The ‘Bibliography of Early Modern English Library Catalogues’ lists hundreds of libraries. In which ones do you find Shakespeare’s quartos? Remember to consider only those catalogues compiled in 1616 or earlier because no one is denying that these quartos eventually came into existence.

The Rosicrucian secret society was self-perpetuating, meaning that the quartos could have been printed and distributed to mansion houses and libraries at any time during the 17th and 18th centuries. And scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries would foolishly accept them as genuine for the date displayed on the cover.
.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-15 15:56:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by marco
[interesting]
Two Australian literary scholars have used mathematical techniques to help uncover the hidden hand of William Shakespeare in an anonymous 16th-century play.
Using sophisticated computer modelling, Jack Elliott and Brett Greatley-Hirsch have shown that at least five scenes in the 1592 tragedy, Arden of Faversham, were penned by the Bard.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australian-data-sleuths-link-shakespeare-to-anonymous-16thcentury-play-20161108-gsl5je.html
marc
Doesn't some of the printed copies actually say by William Shakespeare? So if they have done a test it must have confirmed it was by him after all. It just goes to show that some of Shakespeare experts are complete twits!
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-16 15:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Arden of Faversham is actually a true story! It concerns the murder of Thomas Arden. Historians claim the source of this play to be Holinshed Chronicle of 1587. However since it has now been proved to by Shakespeare, it's possible to show that the play was written before 1587 and much earlier than the 1592 date of the printed version.
We can ascertain that whoever wrote the Holinshed Chronicle of 1587 actually saw the play and used it as part of the text for the history book. It wasn't Holinshed himself for he died in 1580. In fact I have established that the Shakespeare plays were all based on the original edition of 1577 and all historical references are taken from that alone. NOT the 1587 edition.
This can be established as fact now because the play itself contains conversations with Thomas after his death. No real document or history book can contain speeches from any person after his death.
One of the editors of the modern published editions of Arden, Martin White actually checked the original court records of the case. He concluded that the writer of the play (now known as Shakespeare) copied Holinshed verbatim. And he displayed NO knowledge of the court records.
Conversely it also shows that the Holinshed writers NEVER looked at the court records. Especially if it contained references to the dead man speaking.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn in that Shakespeare performed this play to an audience well before the Holinshed edition went to print in 1587. And that if the Holinshed writers of 1587 can do that with one of his plays than can do it with the rest.
Historians have noted that the Holinshed edition of 1587 has lines taken out completely by Shakespeare for a large number of his plays. But what the above shows, is that it wasn't Shakespeare doing the copying. But the writers of the Holinshed chronicle of 1587.
Only the 1577 version is the source of the Shakespeare plays. The Shakespeare plays are the source of Holinshed 1587.
There is also contempory evidence to show that Chronicle writers attended the plays. For Ben Jonson references this in The Devil Is An Ass. One of his characters actually says that he prefers the play version of history for it being more accurate than the Chronicles.

It's the final nail in the coffin for the dating of the play theories that Stratfordians used about William Shakespeare. Placing them all after 1590. Now all Shakespeare plays date between 1578 and 1590 and that William was in London before 1590 and there are NO "missing years".
It just goes to prove that some famous historians can be fooled by one of their own kind. What makes it worse is that they knew before a certain time that some historians would use sources that would see any historian given a Red Card and sent off packing today.
One thinks of Dan Brown in this context and or in the case of this site, Morten, who makes things up and then calls them facts.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-22 23:51:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I think we have gone down this road many times Mutton.
I tell you about a record than you say it's faked and demand tests. Marco puts up a link to a Shakespeare record, you panic, because you know it proves you wrong. But rather than admit defeat you again start saying fake.
The record is broken and you are rich say people have "peanut brains". IF they have them that size imagine what yours must be! Actually we would be better debating on here if you even have one!!
For example you have asked this question before. "bookseller and printer records".
There were not many of them, it's unlikely they kept written records and that if they did highly unlikely such records survived. You might get the will's of the printers and booksellers. But I doubt they would give you any insights into anything to do with the theatre, books, and what they published. It's likely such records would still be in the local archives of the area they operated in. As such you would have to visit the UK and book an appointment to see them. If first you can find them in index's. At that date, also you would need extensive training in reading and understanding old documents. You might also have to join the Archive site first.
You will have to take my word for it, but even finding something in the Archives is a nightmare. I spent a good ten years doing so in Sheffield, researching Sheffield Park and Sheffield Manor where Mary Queen of Scots was kept 14 years. I can tell you the amount of information about her is restricted. Partially because the Talbot records were not well kept. In fact they were only preserved when one chap in around 1700, found them and rescued them from the rats and mice!
As for people with diary's. They tend to get things removed from them. For example Jane Austin's sister burnt much of her archive. There are also loads of reasons why someone might not be mentioned in a diary.
Nice people also have much smaller paper trails than bad people. It's highly unlikely that Shakespeare of Stratford would hang around with people who kept a diary. He was primly an actor on the stage. A very disrespectable person to hang around with back then. The Church for example totally disapproved of the theatre and actors. So the City of London. That's why the theatres were built on land belonging to the Queen. She liked the theatre!

I'll say one thing. You seem to know a lot about a secret society.

As for your questions direct them to the "Stratfordian" website which has loads of Shakespeare documents on display. It will tell you all the sources of the documents and with a bit of effort you can track where they come from.
The Anti Oxford site will also answer most of your questions too.
http://www.oxfraud.com/
Morten St. George
2016-11-24 02:23:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I tell you about a record than you say it's faked and demand tests. Marco puts up a link to a Shakespeare record, you panic, because you know it proves you wrong. But rather than admit defeat you again start saying fake.
Though I might be the only true anti-Stratfordian still alive in this world, historically I am not alone. Across many decades thousands have raised doubts about William of Stratford and those thousands include famous intellectuals and many great writers. It is therefore fair game to challenge the authenticity of the evidence supporting William of Stratford.

This challenge to the authenticity of that evidence is not based on a figment of my imagination. In my pursuit of the history of Merlin's prophecies, I discovered that the plays of Marlowe and Shakespeare were only one manifestation of the workings of a secret society that also produced Nostradamus in France and Rosenkreutz in Germany. Deceit, forgeries, the backdating of books and documents, were all part of the mainstay of their activities.

By Mortenian theory, the story of Shakespearean authorship dates back to the 1120s when the Knights Templar, during their excavations beneath the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, discovered prophetic scrolls of ancient and unknown origin. Brought to France, the prophecies of Merlin (a name weakly derived from the prophetic text itself) came into the possession of Cathar heretics resulting in the extermination of that sect in the 13th century, but the prophecies themselves escaped destruction by being passed on to cabalists who resided in the Provencal region of France. In the late 16th century, the last guardian of the concealed prophecies brought them to London.

So, you see, for me 'Shakespeare' is far more than a mere question of literary authorship and I will continue to seek the truth until my dying days.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-24 15:31:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Though I might be the only true anti-Stratfordian still alive in this world, historically I am not alone.
Your arrogance beggars belief. Sad to say there are still a growing number of your kind. The cause being an education system that encourages wide speculation and question good old common sense.
Across many decades thousands have raised doubts about William of Stratford and those thousands include famous intellectuals and many great writers.
Of course that is the case. Education robs people of all types. They all grow up during their formative years surrounded by people of their own age. It happens everytime a country adopts compulsory education for anyone aged 12 years and over. You can actually see it happening in history. All you need do is look at the UK system. The school leaving age went up in stages from 1948 onwards. Everytime it did, new social problems developed. The powers that be said spend more money on Education and as a result it gets worse. One of the main effect is for the young generation to question adult authority. This can be in all sorts of areas. Some of the resulting changes are positive, such as women's rights. But most are negative. The behaviours have been around before in history. In fact you will find for example some historian who tells us of some sort of current social problem (for example binge drinking) was in the past. But what is happening now is magnified by what I call the "education culture". It was on a small scale before. Now everyone has the problem.

It is therefore fair game to challenge the authenticity of the evidence supporting William of Stratford.

True, but not to question neutral bodies like you do. Saying that places like the National Archives in the UK is pro-Stratfordian. That is your "education culture" working your mind to think that. I suggest you look at your own youth, after you started with puberty and who influenced your behaviour. And don't say parents, because the one thing about puberty is that parental influence MUST be ignored. It HAS to come from an outside source. The question is what? And also it will be different for everyone. All of that comes from when we all hunter-gatherers. We still are like them, we just ignore it. They didn't send children to school after 12. They were taught the world and taught to face them. Not wrapped in cotton wool and told you can't work.
Post by Morten St. George
By Mortenian theory, the story of Shakespearean authorship dates back to the 1120s when the Knights Templar, during their excavations beneath the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, discovered prophetic scrolls of ancient and unknown origin. Brought to France, the prophecies of Merlin (a name weakly derived from the prophetic text itself) came into the possession of Cathar heretics resulting in the extermination of that sect in the 13th century, but the prophecies themselves escaped destruction by being passed on to cabalists who resided in the Provencal region of France. In the late 16th century, the last guardian of the concealed prophecies brought them to London.
Very Dan Brown, full of crap, real history combined with made up nonsense from a wide range of stories. Plus a departure from the story you have spun in the past. Morten theory says it all...
Post by Morten St. George
So, you see, for me 'Shakespeare' is far more than a mere question of literary authorship and I will continue to seek the truth until my dying days.
And in the next life you will argue that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays of Shakespeare.
I know because when I was William Shakespeare of Stratford, I was in love with Elizabeth. But when I was Jane Austin, she hated Elizabeth! Now I'm back to liking her again.
If I were you I would blame Ben Jonson. It was all his fault. He wouldn't let Shakespeare's genius go unnoticed. But he was that busy doing things to praise the man, he forget to include the details of when the plays were performed. And Liz was just as bad, destroying records to protect herself.
OK you can blame me too for carrying on with two many women. But even William knew he could never have sex with the Queen, he certainly wasn't going to stay a virgin like her. Would you?
By the way they didn't have compulsory education in the 16th Century, so far less nutcases around.
Morten St. George
2016-11-25 01:06:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Your arrogance beggars belief. Sad to say there are still a growing number of your kind. The cause being an education system that encourages wide speculation and question good old common sense.
I think you got it all wrong. The real culprit here is the global media that scorns everyone who challenges the official storyline, whether that be Lee Harvey Oswald on the JFK assassination, Osama bin Laden on the 9/11 attacks, or Shakspere of Stratford on Shakespearean authorship. Simply put, without knowing it, you people have been brainwashed.

So, you claim that Shakspere was simultaneously an actor and the leading playwright for a playing company called the Lord Chamberlaine’s Men. Their patron was Henry Carey, then George Carey. Is their any historical record that Shakspere ever met either of them?

And what about Elizabeth I? Didn’t she enjoy the Shakespearean plays? Wouldn’t she want to meet the brilliant playwright? But there is no historical record of any such contact there either, and, yes, the court scribes did keep records of her doings.

In 1603, King James became patron of that playing company and the name was changed to the King’s Men. Like Elizabeth, James too enjoyed the Shakespearean plays, but once again there is no historical record that he ever met or desired to meet the great playwright of his playing company.

The truth of the matter is that the Lords Chamberlain, Elizabeth and James had never heard of Shakspere of Stratford; they all knew who the real author of those plays was and they all respected his wish to keep his identity a secret. You Stratfordians need to face reality.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-25 12:48:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Your arrogance beggars belief. Sad to say there are still a growing number of your kind. The cause being an education system that encourages wide speculation and question good old common sense.
I think you got it all wrong. The real culprit here is the global media that scorns everyone who challenges the official storyline, whether that be Lee Harvey Oswald on the JFK assassination, Osama bin Laden on the 9/11 attacks, or Shakspere of Stratford on Shakespearean authorship. Simply put, without knowing it, you people have been brainwashed.
It's not the media. In the USA the people who thought Kennedy was great, we now know he was far from perfect, couldn't believe that a man of no consequence whatsoever could have killed him, despite all the facts. The 9/11 attacks are simply young people who like have said before, went via education, the "education culture" to question even the higher people in their own religion, who were applaud at such behaviour and find a loop hole that the UK had in place for years. Not having metal detectors on airport security.
The fact that you are unaware of the side effects of sending kids to school says a lot about the education system. For where are you going to find a University person to say that having Education in the way it currently stands will encourage extremes of behaviour? Wouldn't politicians around the world CUTT spending on education if that was the case?
I'll give you some more of the side effects so you know how widespread the problem is.
"First various religions do not know if they are coming or going, literally! Divorce figures have shot through the roof, crime has soared, a sex revolution. Single parents are now common; estates have more kids than adults, despite the pill. We have more teenage pregnancies. Marriage is most likely in decline. Abuse cases have increased, violence in relationships increased. Drink and drugs abuse, together with the dealing of drugs. Violent crime has increased, along with sexual crime, rape, of even elderly women. The breakdown of the family unit is all too common, together with massive levels of homeless and another class, the under class developed, in a supposedly class less society. We have poverty in a welfare state system that was to stop mass unemployment. Also we see politeness very much in decline, rudeness very much on the up. Racism and racial intolerance increases. Apathy over crime and the hard won vote, with people that don’t seem to care about others and feelings of being powerless. Women now work more than men do. Vandalism, litter and graffiti are everywhere. Farmers are leaving the Countryside and city dwellers are living in their homes, while decline of most cities sets in, despite attempts to control it. Others have the feeling to escape the modern society or to blow parts of it up.
On the other hand gains have been made such as: massive technological advance, urban sprawl, wealth, sexual liberation for women and children freed from working till at least 16, more broadminded people who tolerate and protect those who are different and many more."

The following also shows how we blame other things for changes we don't like. But in essence they are in contradiction of the way our bodies were set up. many thousands of years ago.

"We therefore can’t tell even for certain what the culture of hunter/gatherers was. However the human body behaves in ways that only fit certain patterns of a lifestyle. Most of us wouldn’t want and don’t want to change back to that existence, which undoubtedly still controls our bodies. Some now see hunting as barbaric, even for food. Opting out of eating flesh of another creature altogether. Yet we pay and have paid an enormous cost for changing our daily life away from it. We try and use technology to solve most of the problems we are experiencing. So far we haven’t got a clue as to why some of the problems, despite: wealth, better food and newer technologies are still with us. Even in the wealthiest countries problems have got worse. Old people recall that it wasn’t like that when they were young. Each newer generation of elderly repeat this. It’s so rapid that even much younger people are now saying it. Still it’s put down to rapid technological change and the society it creates. Who thought that one up? Having a mobile phone doesn’t cause people to neglect their children. If you look into any products origins, it seems a lot of this technology seems to be in response to this change rather than driving it. Take television. If you put the box into a culture that’s not seen one before it changes the daily life of these people. But you could say that about any invention. It doesn’t have to an invention! Go back to the Wild West of America, the Indian on his horse. A common image, but the Europeans gave them horses, which changed the American Indian’s existence. American horses are just as much immigrants along with the white man who killed and gave the native population diseases. Anyway back to television, those who wanted to set up the service saw it as an educational tool. Society wanted something different and got rid of those who set it up; replacing it with those who wanted it different. Now they are under threat, from those who want something else. Presumably the process will repeat, rather like the TV programmes. What then does drive this change - greed? We see things and we want them? A thing that TV is said to promote. If that were the case, we would be all stealing from one another by now! The Victorians were greedier than modern people in Britain. They let young children work down pits so they could make massive profits. Just look at the Empire they built, they didn‘t care if it destroyed old cultures. Only how much richer it made them, a monument to plain greediness. Their 15-year-old children did not behave in the same way as 21st Century kids. You might find isolated examples, as in we are all human. But when the vast majority have those isolated behavioural pockets, it tells you things have changed. So much so, the Conservative Party (in the UK) tried to reintroduce Victorian Values to eighties Britain, did they succeed? We all know they didn’t. Also few Conservatives would agree they had, never mind everyone else. But Britain hasn’t been alone in wanting to bring back ‘traditional’ ways. Most modern countries have got this hankering back to the past attitude to many things."
Post by Morten St. George
So, you claim that Shakspere was simultaneously an actor and the leading playwright for a playing company called the Lord Chamberlaine’s Men.
Not at first. He was the leading person in the Queen's men. Most of the people in that were part of later groups of actors. The Queen's men was shut down around 1588. All the Shakespeare plays, some 600 of them, date to around 1580 and 1588.
Their patron was Henry Carey, then George Carey. Is their any historical record that Shakspere ever met either of them?

You are following the Stratfordian line, which is odd because you normally don't follow a lines on your own enquires. You in fact go off on unsupported theories.
Post by Morten St. George
And what about Elizabeth I? Didn’t she enjoy the Shakespearean plays? Wouldn’t she want to meet the brilliant playwright? But there is no historical record of any such contact there either, and, yes, the court scribes did keep records of her doings.
There are historical records. There's the picture with Queen Elizabeth and Dudley dancing. To the far left of the picture is the young William Shakespeare. He's playing a drum. Marlowe is next with a fiddle type instrument, you can also make out other actors in the band. You had to be very versatile as court entertainers. And Elizabeth of course writes the Sonnets with him. Of course this is all much against Stratfordian thinking. In 1588 the Queen's men comes to an end. Why?
As I have said before Marlowe tells her that he has been sleeping with Shakespeare's wife Anne. The Queen didn't know William was married and throws them all out ending the Queen's men. To protect her reputation she censors the court records, to remove William Shakespeare from them. Shakespeare also wishes to protect her reputation too. So he hides himself away. Though at first he tries to get her to change his mind by doing the Venus and Adonis publication, giving the upper class twit, Southampton a £1000 for the dedication and to talk to her. It succeeds and the Lord Chamberlain lot enters the scene and the Official records start appearing. But they are ALL old plays just remastered. When Ben Jonson publishers the Sonnets, Shakespeare destroys any clues to who he was and hides away to protect the Queen's reputation. Even though at this point she's dead.
Post by Morten St. George
In 1603, King James became patron of that playing company and the name was changed to the King’s Men. Like Elizabeth, James too enjoyed the Shakespearean plays, but once again there is no historical record that he ever met or desired to meet the great playwright of his playing company.
As for King James he has a perfect reason to hide William Shakespeare, though he does crop up in the records. As Shakespeare fathered all of King James kids. That's why the Royal Family even today look like William Shakespeare and anyone who has any kind of descent from the Royal Family, which probably includes myself, as I look like William Shakespeare.
Post by Morten St. George
The truth of the matter is
OUT THERE...
You need to face reality.
Reality is subjective to what you brain makes it out.
For example you see the world not as it should be. For your eyes would be out of focus surrounded by garbage, shifting rapidly from side to side, upside down, with weird colour patterns that would change depending where you were.
Your brain concentrates on one small section of what your eye sees, focus it. Turns it around, stops any movement and corrects the colour, it then from a inbuilt model tells you what you are seeing. It frequently makes mistakes. For example if you have alcohol tiny hairs inside your ear canals go stiff, and because you have a balance problem then, even though your eyes see that your head is upright, because the brain overrules your balance sensor, in favour of your eyes your vision goes spinning. There are also lots of vision tricks too. As can be seen in this video by Squeeze.


All based on the brain model being deceived.
Sneaky O. Possum
2016-11-25 21:44:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 10:31:48 AM UTC-5,
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Your arrogance beggars belief. Sad to say there are still a growing
numbe
r of your kind. The cause being an education system that encourages
wide speculation and question good old common sense.
I think you got it all wrong. The real culprit here is the global
media that scorns everyone who challenges the official storyline,
whether that be Lee Harvey Oswald on the JFK assassination, Osama bin
Laden on the 9/11 attacks, or Shakspere of Stratford on Shakespearean
authorship. Simply put, without knowing it, you people have been
brainwashed.
As opposed to knowingly having been brainwashed?
So, you claim that Shakspere was simultaneously an actor and the
leading playwright for a playing company called the Lord
Chamberlaine’s Men. Their patron was Henry Carey, then George Carey.
Is their any historical record that Shakspere ever met either of them?
Is there any historical record of *any* member of the Lord Chamberlain's
Men meeting Henry Carey or his son?
And what about Elizabeth I? Didn’t she enjoy the Shakespearean
plays?
Ben Jonson thought so, but he was part of the conspiracy.
Wouldn’t she want to meet the brilliant playwright?
Why would she have wanted that?
But there is no historical record of any such contact there either,
and, yes, the court scribes did keep records of her doings.
AFAIK there is no historical record of Elizabeth meeting *any*
professional playwright.
In 1603, King James became patron of that playing company and the name
was changed to the King’s Men. Like Elizabeth, James too enjoyed the
Shakespearean plays, but once again there is no historical record that
he ever met or desired to meet the great playwright of his playing
company.
So?
The truth of the matter is that the Lords Chamberlain, Elizabeth and
James had never heard of Shakspere of Stratford;
Or Richard Burbage, or Robert Armin, or Condell, Heminges, Kempe,
Phillips, etc. After all, if they had ever heard of any of them, someone
would have written it down, right?
they all knew who the real author of those plays was and they all
respected his wish to keep his identity a secret. You Stratfordians
need to face reality.
Hm.
--
S.O.P.
Morten St. George
2016-11-26 00:48:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sneaky O. Possum
Is there any historical record of *any* member of the Lord Chamberlain's
Men meeting Henry Carey or his son?
AFAIK there is no historical record of Elizabeth meeting *any*
professional playwright.
I made those statements about Shakespeare because I have read in many places that the Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians alike have meticulously and exhaustively searched through the historical records of the 16th century for information on the elusive Shakespeare and have apparently come up empty-handed with regard to royal contact. Are you able to affirm that similar investigations were undertaken for other actors and lesser playwrights of that epoch? If not, your allegations cannot be accepted.

On Jonson, Wikipedia writes: "In 1616 Jonson received a yearly pension of 100 marks (about £60), leading some to identify him as England's first Poet Laureate. This sign of royal favour may have encouraged him to publish the first volume of the folio collected edition of his works that year." So, what praise and awards were lavished upon Shakespeare (surely superior to Jonson both as a poet and as playwright) by either Elizabeth or James? Moreover, Shakespeare supposedly wrote exclusively for the King’s Men, King James’ own playing company. Why no eulogy from James when Shakespeare died, also in 1616? Can’t you see why Shakespeare is problematic?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-26 01:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by Sneaky O. Possum
Is there any historical record of *any* member of the Lord Chamberlain's
Men meeting Henry Carey or his son?
AFAIK there is no historical record of Elizabeth meeting *any*
professional playwright.
I made those statements about Shakespeare because I have read in many places that the Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians alike have meticulously and exhaustively searched through the historical records of the 16th century for information on the elusive Shakespeare and have apparently come up empty-handed with regard to royal contact. Are you able to affirm that similar investigations were undertaken for other actors and lesser playwrights of that epoch? If not, your allegations cannot be accepted.
On Jonson, Wikipedia writes: "In 1616 Jonson received a yearly pension of 100 marks (about £60), leading some to identify him as England's first Poet Laureate. This sign of royal favour may have encouraged him to publish the first volume of the folio collected edition of his works that year." So, what praise and awards were lavished upon Shakespeare (surely superior to Jonson both as a poet and as playwright) by either Elizabeth or James? Moreover, Shakespeare supposedly wrote exclusively for the King’s Men, King James’ own playing company. Why no eulogy from James when Shakespeare died, also in 1616? Can’t you see why Shakespeare is problematic?
He did say there's no record of Elizabeth meeting anyone, NOT James.

As I have told you before the known portraits of James do NOT MATCH his future relations. And ALL the current Royal Family is descended from James's daughter Elizabeth. In fact she looks more like William Shakespeare.
Edward VII looks like the Gerard Soest painting of Shakespeare.

Queen Elizabeth II when young also looks like William.
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

And the one they are descended from: Elizabeth Stuart(Shakespeare)

Loading Image...


James couldn't have kids. Probably chicken pox when young made him infertile. When he married Anne it was ages before any children popped out. So that's a clue.
He didn't want to get stuck like Henry VIII, so he got Shakespeare to do the deeds. Now would you lavish praise on the bloke that fathered your kids, when you are a King? Even if you asked him too.
Shakespeare wrote NOTHING for the King's Men. Except one line in Henry VII, that mentions James. They simply put on all the existing 600 plays of which 37 were published in the works.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-25 13:08:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Images left out of the above post...

Queen Elizabeth dancing.
Loading Image...

Shakespeare holding the Queen's hand. Not the same type hat as above.
Loading Image...

Records show that Shakespeare's father a glove maker, was also in trouble, with another man over something. That man made hats!

Painting showing the first meeting with Elizabeth. In fact the several different time points all incorporated into the same picture.
Elizabeth can be seen kissing the young Shakespeare and in another shot he's older.
Loading Image...
Morten St. George
2016-11-25 20:07:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Queen Elizabeth dancing.
http://www.rmg.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/slider/public/Robert_Dudley_Elizabeth_Dancing.jpg?itok=h-QkUSM1
I agree with you on this. It does indeed look like Shakespeare is depicted in that French painting, but he is not the one dancing with Elizabeth; he’s the guy playing the large viol.

If you don’t believe me, take another look at my article on The True Face of Shakespeare and compare:

http://mortenstgeorge.info/face-of-shakespeare.pdf

Graham, you never told me that Shakespeare knew how to play a musical instrument. You got to get with it!
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-26 00:35:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Queen Elizabeth dancing.
http://www.rmg.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/slider/public/Robert_Dudley_Elizabeth_Dancing.jpg?itok=h-QkUSM1
I agree with you on this. It does indeed look like Shakespeare is depicted in that French painting, but he is not the one dancing with Elizabeth; he’s the guy playing the large viol.
It's not a French painting. It's an English copy of a French court scene. The tall bloke is actually Burbage the elder one. If you look carefully you can see a large oversized face of a woman just above the bloke with viol. The reason it's the wrong size is that it is a true portrait of Elizabeth. One that she had destroyed, because it depicted her as good looking.
Post by Morten St. George
http://mortenstgeorge.info/face-of-shakespeare.pdf
He's more like the image of William Shakespeare by Hilliard. The above picture was painted well before Shakespeare was official recorded in London. Whereas the book was much later than the painting.
Post by Morten St. George
Graham, you never told me that Shakespeare knew how to play a musical instrument. You got to get with it!
Of course he did. A drum. Haven't you heard of iambic pentameter? To get it right in a play he beat it out on a drum. It is based on the heart beat of a person you know.
And of course the line. "If music be the food of love play on".
Elizabeth was also an accomplished musician as can be seen in the hand reaching down. She had what most people would now call "Piano fingers". Though of course she played the early forms of the piano and the lute.
Morten St. George
2016-11-26 03:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
It's not a French painting. It's an English copy of a French court scene.
Historically, art experts have claimed this was a painting of Elizabeth I dancing with Robert Dudley but it seems in recent years the Stratfordians (never known for their intelligence) are claiming that this is a painting of unknown French dancers and that it has nothing to do with England.

A comparison of this painting with paintings of A Ball in the Court of Henry III of France reveal identical style and very likely the same painter. Henry III ruled France from 1574 until 1589. Clothing is somewhat similar in all the paintings but this is only to be expected in the same way that today men from around the world wear a jacket and tie. Foreign ambassadors were likely present at both events.

But there is a telling difference. In the Henry III paintings, a male is wearing the crown (France had a king) but in our painting a female is wearing the crown (only England had a queen). So, how did a French painter get imported to England to do that painting?

During the 1580s, Shakespearean writer William Stanley spent three years in France where his father was English ambassador to Henry III. Suspected Shakespearean assistant Charles Howard was also an ambassador to France. And during the 1580s, Shakespearean architect John Florio spent a few years working as the personal assistant to Henry III’s ambassador in London. All this is significant: recall that correlations with Nostradamus (a work written in French) permeate the Shakespearean canon.

As for the painting, it seems they had enough French connections to make arrangements for that French painter to be brought over to England to paint Elizabeth and Dudley (who by Mortenian theory was Florio’s uncle).

If it can be confirmed that English aristocrats entertained each other at the royal court, the guy playing the large viol would be Shakespearean candidate William Stanley. In high resolution, a legacy painting of Stanley reveals that a thin upper layer of his mustache twists out and upwards. Along with similar general physique, upward mustache twists are seen in our painting and in the Herball depiction of Shakespeare. I see little evidence that such twists (apparently requiring some type of glue to stay in place) were otherwise commonplace in that epoch.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-26 13:31:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
It's not a French painting. It's an English copy of a French court scene.
Historically, art experts have claimed this was a painting of Elizabeth I dancing with Robert Dudley but it seems in recent years the Stratfordians (never known for their intelligence) are claiming that this is a painting of unknown French dancers and that it has nothing to do with England.
I don't know where you got that idea from, it seems unlikely that Stratfordians would have any interest in the picture, because according to their timeline it would have nothing to do with Shakespeare. Personally I would put the English picture to a Dutch artist, rather than a French one, who clearly has seen the other one. I would date this picture to 1580. But what you are lacking is an understanding of the image. Which is more complex than Elizabeth and Robert dancing. You said it was Shakespeare dancing with the Queen, but he's on the far left.
Post by Morten St. George
A comparison of this painting with paintings of A Ball in the Court of Henry III of France reveal identical style and very likely the same painter. Henry III ruled France from 1574 until 1589. Clothing is somewhat similar in all the paintings but this is only to be expected in the same way that today men from around the world wear a jacket and tie. Foreign ambassadors were likely present at both events.
That picture dates to 1581, so could actually be the French court copying the Queen's picture. However there is no way to tell which was painted first.

Right let's look at what the picture means, to an Elizabethan person. If you look at the whole of the centre bit of the picture you will see that the Queen and the rest are all bathed in light. The fireplace is not lit, so the light doesn't come from there. The room around is black, there are chandeliers on the ceiling but they are not lit. The source of the light is a window, but it's not night. So what would cause a room to go dark? The answer is a storm. And the light breaking through is the sun after a storm. It shines on Elizabeth and she is dancing happily. With music playing away. Men with pikes watch on.
Therefore the picture represents the troubles that England has been through - the storm - the armed men. And the fact that the Sun shines on the Queen and her people. Who clearly has lead her people through them. And the Sun shines on her.
Now that would NOT be done by any French artist as it praises the Queen too much. It was also painted before the Spanish Armada as both Dudley died shortly after it, plus they are too young, and Philip Sidney can be seen in the fireplace, who left England in 1584 and died a few years later.
Queen Elizabeth's dwarf woman can be seen in the picture too. There's very little information about her. Less than Shakespeare, but she is sometimes mentioned in the court records. The woman fanning herself also shows it was hot, again the heat caused by a summer thunderstorm.
Sorry but William Stanley would not be in the band playing anything. It would be too lower a status for a member of the court to play along with court entertainers.
The man with the Viol da Gamba is Richard Burbage and the other is Will Kemp, a known member of Leicester's Men.
marco
2016-11-26 15:50:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
It's not a French painting. It's an English copy of a French court scene.
Historically, art experts have claimed this was a painting of Elizabeth I dancing with Robert Dudley but it seems in recent years the Stratfordians (never known for their intelligence) are claiming that this is a painting of unknown French dancers and that it has nothing to do with England.
I don't know where you got that idea from, it seems unlikely that Stratfordians would have any interest in the picture, because according to their timeline it would have nothing to do with Shakespeare. Personally I would put the English picture to a Dutch artist, rather than a French one, who clearly has seen the other one. I would date this picture to 1580. But what you are lacking is an understanding of the image. Which is more complex than Elizabeth and Robert dancing. You said it was Shakespeare dancing with the Queen, but he's on the far left.
Post by Morten St. George
A comparison of this painting with paintings of A Ball in the Court of Henry III of France reveal identical style and very likely the same painter. Henry III ruled France from 1574 until 1589. Clothing is somewhat similar in all the paintings but this is only to be expected in the same way that today men from around the world wear a jacket and tie. Foreign ambassadors were likely present at both events.
That picture dates to 1581, so could actually be the French court copying the Queen's picture. However there is no way to tell which was painted first.
Right let's look at what the picture means, to an Elizabethan person. If you look at the whole of the centre bit of the picture you will see that the Queen and the rest are all bathed in light. The fireplace is not lit, so the light doesn't come from there. The room around is black, there are chandeliers on the ceiling but they are not lit. The source of the light is a window, but it's not night. So what would cause a room to go dark? The answer is a storm. And the light breaking through is the sun after a storm. It shines on Elizabeth and she is dancing happily. With music playing away. Men with pikes watch on.
Therefore the picture represents the troubles that England has been through - the storm - the armed men. And the fact that the Sun shines on the Queen and her people. Who clearly has lead her people through them. And the Sun shines on her.
Now that would NOT be done by any French artist as it praises the Queen too much. It was also painted before the Spanish Armada as both Dudley died shortly after it, plus they are too young, and Philip Sidney can be seen in the fireplace, who left England in 1584 and died a few years later.
Queen Elizabeth's dwarf woman can be seen in the picture too. There's very little information about her. Less than Shakespeare, but she is sometimes mentioned in the court records. The woman fanning herself also shows it was hot, again the heat caused by a summer thunderstorm.
Sorry but William Stanley would not be in the band playing anything. It would be too lower a status for a member of the court to play along with court entertainers.
The man with the Viol da Gamba is Richard Burbage and the other is Will Kemp, a known member of Leicester's Men.
.
Morten St. George
2016-11-27 01:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I don't know where you got that idea from, it seems unlikely that Stratfordians would have any interest in the picture, because according to their timeline it would have nothing to do with Shakespeare.
I am far from an expert in the fine arts so I think it best to keep my comments down to a minimum; already I see that twisted mustaches were not as rare as I have previously suggested.

But I continue to consider Stanley as a possibility for the viol player. I only looked at your painting in the first place to search for someone who looked like the Herball depiction of Shakespeare and the viol player comes close. It’s been noted that English aristocrats read their poetry to each other so it makes sense that if one of them had learned to play a musical instrument, he would play it in front of his peers. I do believe I read somewhere that Stanley took an interest in music in his youth.

Sir Philip Sidney as the man in the fireplace looks like a good guess unless, of course, if this dance was a celebration of the victory over the Spanish Armada. In that case, I would put Sir Francis Drake in the fireplace as it was his fire-ships that turned the tide. We see light from those fires reflecting on his left side, and note the soldier with sword up front. Dudley wasn’t dead yet, reportedly having regularly dined with the queen for a couple of weeks following the defeat of the Armada.

I disagree that the miniature woman is a physical dwarf because I saw a dwarf couple dancing in another painting by that artist. The miniature woman is very likely not in attendance at the dance at all because she is dead; from her grave she’s looking in envy upon Queen Elizabeth in all her glory. With short hair noticeable, she’s probably Mary, Queen of Scots, beheaded before the Spanish Armada could liberate her and make her queen.

In brief, I concur with the fine art experts who across the centuries have claimed that this is a painting of Elizabeth dancing with Dudley; moreover, the Valois style could suggest that the artist was contracted by Shakespeare and friends who at that time had French connections. We must therefore resist the Stratfordians who, in their efforts to steer us away from the truth, try to con us into believing that this painting was set in France and hence could not contain a depiction of Shakespeare.
marco
2016-11-27 02:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I don't know where you got that idea from, it seems unlikely that Stratfordians would have any interest in the picture, because according to their timeline it would have nothing to do with Shakespeare.
I am far from an expert in the fine arts so I think it best to keep my comments down to a minimum; already I see that twisted mustaches were not as rare as I have previously suggested.
But I continue to consider Stanley as a possibility for the viol player. I only looked at your painting in the first place to search for someone who looked like the Herball depiction of Shakespeare and the viol player comes close. It’s been noted that English aristocrats read their poetry to each other so it makes sense that if one of them had learned to play a musical instrument, he would play it in front of his peers. I do believe I read somewhere that Stanley took an interest in music in his youth.
Sir Philip Sidney as the man in the fireplace looks like a good guess unless, of course, if this dance was a celebration of the victory over the Spanish Armada. In that case, I would put Sir Francis Drake in the fireplace as it was his fire-ships that turned the tide. We see light from those fires reflecting on his left side, and note the soldier with sword up front. Dudley wasn’t dead yet, reportedly having regularly dined with the queen for a couple of weeks following the defeat of the Armada.
I disagree that the miniature woman is a physical dwarf because I saw a dwarf couple dancing in another painting by that artist. The miniature woman is very likely not in attendance at the dance at all because she is dead; from her grave she’s looking in envy upon Queen Elizabeth in all her glory. With short hair noticeable, she’s probably Mary, Queen of Scots, beheaded before the Spanish Armada could liberate her and make her queen.
In brief, I concur with the fine art experts who across the centuries have claimed that this is a painting of Elizabeth dancing with Dudley; moreover, the Valois style could suggest that the artist was contracted by Shakespeare and friends who at that time had French connections. We must therefore resist the Stratfordians who, in their efforts to steer us away from the truth, try to con us into believing that this painting was set in France and hence could not contain a depiction of Shakespeare.
.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-27 19:21:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I don't know where you got that idea from, it seems unlikely that Stratfordians would have any interest in the picture, because according to their timeline it would have nothing to do with Shakespeare.
I am far from an expert in the fine arts so I think it best to keep my comments down to a minimum; already I see that twisted mustaches were not as rare as I have previously suggested.
But I continue to consider Stanley as a possibility for the viol player. I only looked at your painting in the first place to search for someone who looked like the Herball depiction of Shakespeare and the viol player comes close. It’s been noted that English aristocrats read their poetry to each other so it makes sense that if one of them had learned to play a musical instrument, he would play it in front of his peers. I do believe I read somewhere that Stanley took an interest in music in his youth.
Sir Philip Sidney as the man in the fireplace looks like a good guess unless, of course, if this dance was a celebration of the victory over the Spanish Armada. In that case, I would put Sir Francis Drake in the fireplace as it was his fire-ships that turned the tide. We see light from those fires reflecting on his left side, and note the soldier with sword up front. Dudley wasn’t dead yet, reportedly having regularly dined with the queen for a couple of weeks following the defeat of the Armada.
Later depictions of Robert show he had become very fat. This picture is much earlier than the Armada. More likely after Northumberland's revolt.
Post by Morten St. George
I disagree that the miniature woman is a physical dwarf because I saw a dwarf couple dancing in another painting by that artist. The miniature woman is very likely not in attendance at the dance at all because she is dead; from her grave she’s looking in envy upon Queen Elizabeth in all her glory.
The Elizabethan's didn't go in for ghosts or dead people. Beside Marie Stuart, who was an real upper class SNOB and hated people calling her "Mary" was 6 foot tall. One of the side effects of having an overactive Thyroid Gland. It's why she was so ill most of the time, it gave her massive amounts of energy one minute and the next she could not get out of the chair!

With short hair noticeable, she’s probably Mary, Queen of Scots, beheaded before the Spanish Armada could liberate her and make her queen.

The Spanish didn't give a sod who was Queen, they just wanted to invade. Philip would have chopped Marie Stuart head off, shortly afterwards, for you would have caused him trouble too. She wasn't Queen of anything. She abdicated before she left Scotland. Forced possibly. But all the same she wasn't Queen. It's only Elizabeth who calls her Queen. One of those quirks you get with dumb blondes. They have their own ideas of doing things. Elizabeth would have happy if she had stayed alive. She just didn't want to die sooner than expected to do via natural causes. Elizabeth had lost all interest in who had the throne next. But Cecil and Walsingham did. And all the rest of the court too.
Post by Morten St. George
In brief, I concur with the fine art experts who across the centuries have claimed that this is a painting of Elizabeth dancing with Dudley; moreover, the Valois style could suggest that the artist was contracted by Shakespeare and friends who at that time had French connections.
As I said before you are making an assumption that the French painting came first. There is no dating evidence on the Elizabeth picture to put it after the French one or before. The French one I have seen dates to 1581. But if the Elizabeth one dates a year or two before there is no way to say which came first.

We must therefore resist the Stratfordians who, in their efforts to steer us away from the truth, try to con us into believing that this painting was set in France and hence could not contain a depiction of Shakespeare.

I have seen no discussions anywhere where any Stratford people have said this picture is set in France. Perhaps you could direct me to where you have got this idea?
I have seen a book on Greenwich where the historian Beryl Platts thinks the musicians are Court ones in Greenwich. Clive Aslet, The Story of Greenwich, Fourth Estate London 1999. PP68-69.
marco
2016-11-27 23:32:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I don't know where you got that idea from, it seems unlikely that Stratfordians would have any interest in the picture, because according to their timeline it would have nothing to do with Shakespeare.
I am far from an expert in the fine arts so I think it best to keep my comments down to a minimum; already I see that twisted mustaches were not as rare as I have previously suggested.
But I continue to consider Stanley as a possibility for the viol player. I only looked at your painting in the first place to search for someone who looked like the Herball depiction of Shakespeare and the viol player comes close. It’s been noted that English aristocrats read their poetry to each other so it makes sense that if one of them had learned to play a musical instrument, he would play it in front of his peers. I do believe I read somewhere that Stanley took an interest in music in his youth.
Sir Philip Sidney as the man in the fireplace looks like a good guess unless, of course, if this dance was a celebration of the victory over the Spanish Armada. In that case, I would put Sir Francis Drake in the fireplace as it was his fire-ships that turned the tide. We see light from those fires reflecting on his left side, and note the soldier with sword up front. Dudley wasn’t dead yet, reportedly having regularly dined with the queen for a couple of weeks following the defeat of the Armada.
Later depictions of Robert show he had become very fat. This picture is much earlier than the Armada. More likely after Northumberland's revolt.
Post by Morten St. George
I disagree that the miniature woman is a physical dwarf because I saw a dwarf couple dancing in another painting by that artist. The miniature woman is very likely not in attendance at the dance at all because she is dead; from her grave she’s looking in envy upon Queen Elizabeth in all her glory.
The Elizabethan's didn't go in for ghosts or dead people. Beside Marie Stuart, who was an real upper class SNOB and hated people calling her "Mary" was 6 foot tall. One of the side effects of having an overactive Thyroid Gland. It's why she was so ill most of the time, it gave her massive amounts of energy one minute and the next she could not get out of the chair!
With short hair noticeable, she’s probably Mary, Queen of Scots, beheaded before the Spanish Armada could liberate her and make her queen.
The Spanish didn't give a sod who was Queen, they just wanted to invade. Philip would have chopped Marie Stuart head off, shortly afterwards, for you would have caused him trouble too. She wasn't Queen of anything. She abdicated before she left Scotland. Forced possibly. But all the same she wasn't Queen. It's only Elizabeth who calls her Queen. One of those quirks you get with dumb blondes. They have their own ideas of doing things. Elizabeth would have happy if she had stayed alive. She just didn't want to die sooner than expected to do via natural causes. Elizabeth had lost all interest in who had the throne next. But Cecil and Walsingham did. And all the rest of the court too.
Post by Morten St. George
In brief, I concur with the fine art experts who across the centuries have claimed that this is a painting of Elizabeth dancing with Dudley; moreover, the Valois style could suggest that the artist was contracted by Shakespeare and friends who at that time had French connections.
As I said before you are making an assumption that the French painting came first. There is no dating evidence on the Elizabeth picture to put it after the French one or before. The French one I have seen dates to 1581. But if the Elizabeth one dates a year or two before there is no way to say which came first.
We must therefore resist the Stratfordians who, in their efforts to steer us away from the truth, try to con us into believing that this painting was set in France and hence could not contain a depiction of Shakespeare.
I have seen no discussions anywhere where any Stratford people have said this picture is set in France. Perhaps you could direct me to where you have got this idea?
I have seen a book on Greenwich where the historian Beryl Platts thinks the musicians are Court ones in Greenwich. Clive Aslet, The Story of Greenwich, Fourth Estate London 1999. PP68-69.
.
Morten St. George
2016-11-28 00:33:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Later depictions of Robert show he had become very fat. This picture is much earlier than the Armada.
Isn’t Elizabeth’s bloating dress obstructing view of Robert’s pot belly?

The guy to the right of Elizabeth very closely matches a picture of Sir Francis Drake, so maybe the guy near the fireplace is the young Lord Admiral for whom we seem to have only old-man pictures.

The painting clearly depicts a celebration, and what more did Elizabeth ever have to celebrate than her victory over the Spanish Armada?
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Elizabethan's didn't go in for ghosts or dead people.
What? There are no ghosts in Shakespeare?
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Spanish didn't give a sod who was Queen, they just wanted to invade.
Didn’t the Pope promise to pay Philip big bucks for installing a Catholic on the thrown of England? Do you know of any Catholic who had better rights to the thrown than Mary?

When Mary got her head chopped off, her wig fell fell off, revealing that she had short grayish hair. The painting reveals both, her natural short hair up front and the wig on the back of her head.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I have seen no discussions anywhere where any Stratford people have said this picture is set in France. Perhaps you could direct me to where you have got this idea?
As you know, I use the term "Stratfordian" to refer to anyone who tries to hinder uncovering the truth about Shakespearean authorship.

Wikipedia writes "Despite its mocking title, Queen Elizabeth I Dancing with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, this painting of the lavolta is from the French Valois school and depicts unknown dancers. It is currently in Penshurst Place in Kent."

Well, once you remove Elizabeth and Dudley from the picture, isn’t it pretty obvious that the setting has to be France?

My internet subscription expires tomorrow and I might not renew it to get a few days of peace and quiet.
marco
2016-11-28 03:02:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Later depictions of Robert show he had become very fat. This picture is much earlier than the Armada.
Isn’t Elizabeth’s bloating dress obstructing view of Robert’s pot belly?
The guy to the right of Elizabeth very closely matches a picture of Sir Francis Drake, so maybe the guy near the fireplace is the young Lord Admiral for whom we seem to have only old-man pictures.
The painting clearly depicts a celebration, and what more did Elizabeth ever have to celebrate than her victory over the Spanish Armada?
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Elizabethan's didn't go in for ghosts or dead people.
What? There are no ghosts in Shakespeare?
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Spanish didn't give a sod who was Queen, they just wanted to invade.
Didn’t the Pope promise to pay Philip big bucks for installing a Catholic on the thrown of England? Do you know of any Catholic who had better rights to the thrown than Mary?
When Mary got her head chopped off, her wig fell fell off, revealing that she had short grayish hair. The painting reveals both, her natural short hair up front and the wig on the back of her head.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I have seen no discussions anywhere where any Stratford people have said this picture is set in France. Perhaps you could direct me to where you have got this idea?
As you know, I use the term "Stratfordian" to refer to anyone who tries to hinder uncovering the truth about Shakespearean authorship.
Wikipedia writes "Despite its mocking title, Queen Elizabeth I Dancing with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, this painting of the lavolta is from the French Valois school and depicts unknown dancers. It is currently in Penshurst Place in Kent."
Well, once you remove Elizabeth and Dudley from the picture, isn’t it pretty obvious that the setting has to be France?
My internet subscription expires tomorrow and I might not renew it to get a few days of peace and quiet.
.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-28 12:54:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Later depictions of Robert show he had become very fat. This picture is much earlier than the Armada.
Isn’t Elizabeth’s bloating dress obstructing view of Robert’s pot belly?
No!
Post by Morten St. George
The guy to the right of Elizabeth very closely matches a picture of Sir Francis Drake, so maybe the guy near the fireplace is the young Lord Admiral for whom we seem to have only old-man pictures.
We might think a lot of Drake due to some stories, but the Queen thought otherwise. It was Howard Lord Effingham who was the main person in her eyes. Armada historians say that Drake's ship never took part in the main battle as it had split it's main mast. You have to ignore Victorian folk stories sometimes Mutton.
Post by Morten St. George
The painting clearly depicts a celebration, and what more did Elizabeth ever have to celebrate than her victory over the Spanish Armada?
I have said what it shows. There are no signs of any ship references, the crescent moon for example.
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Elizabethan's didn't go in for ghosts or dead people.
What? There are no ghosts in Shakespeare?
In paintings dumb dumb...
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Spanish didn't give a sod who was Queen, they just wanted to invade.
Didn’t the Pope promise to pay Philip big bucks for installing a Catholic on the thrown of England? Do you know of any Catholic who had better rights to the thrown than Mary?
Marie wasn't Catholic. She would change her religion if she wanted to. The Duke of Norfolk for example who was executed wasn't Catholic. But she wanted to marry him. When he pointed out that he wasn't of her religion, she said she would change her religion. In fact Mary Stuart was in trouble with the Pope for marrying Bothwell, who was Protestant and already married. Philip wanted to invade England because Elizabeth had insulted him when he offered to marry her.
The Pope also said he wouldn't minded marrying Elizabeth!
Post by Morten St. George
When Mary got her head chopped off, her wig fell fell off, revealing that she had short grayish hair. The painting reveals both, her natural short hair up front and the wig on the back of her head.
There's a death mask of Mary Stuart at Lenexlove house, that's what Mary looked like. Mary Stuart I repeat would not be in any picture with the Queen.
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I have seen no discussions anywhere where any Stratford people have said this picture is set in France. Perhaps you could direct me to where you have got this idea?
As you know, I use the term "Stratfordian" to refer to anyone who tries to hinder uncovering the truth about Shakespearean authorship.
Wikipedia writes "Despite its mocking title, Queen Elizabeth I Dancing with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, this painting of the lavolta is from the French Valois school and depicts unknown dancers. It is currently in Penshurst Place in Kent."
A lot of Wikipedia is absolute rubbish. It's very clearly Elizabeth. The Queen was dancing well into her 60's. It's highly unlikely that a French picture would be found in an English House. A test on the wood it's painted on should show it to be of English wood. So ask for it to be tested. On the other if you look up Penshurst on the internet, then you will see it was the home of Sir Philip Sidney. And the fact that a man that looks like Sir Philip Sidney in the fireplace is a huge coincidence don't you think?
As you are hindering the truth about Shakespeare, are you thus another Stratfordian?
Post by Morten St. George
Well, once you remove Elizabeth and Dudley from the picture, isn’t it pretty obvious that the setting has to be France?
Not a bit like a French court scene. The fireplace alone points to an English design. The pike men too are clearly English.
Post by Morten St. George
My internet subscription expires tomorrow and I might not renew it to get a few days of peace and quiet.
Yes they must be missing you in the Asylum.
Try reading some Shakespeare plays instead. You might realise that you are barking up the wrong tree. If you weren't already barking mad!
Morten St. George
2016-11-28 16:45:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Later depictions of Robert show he had become very fat. This picture is much earlier than the Armada.
Isn’t Elizabeth’s bloating dress obstructing view of Robert’s pot belly?
No!
Post by Morten St. George
The guy to the right of Elizabeth very closely matches a picture of Sir Francis Drake, so maybe the guy near the fireplace is the young Lord Admiral for whom we seem to have only old-man pictures.
We might think a lot of Drake due to some stories, but the Queen thought otherwise. It was Howard Lord Effingham who was the main person in her eyes. Armada historians say that Drake's ship never took part in the main battle as it had split it's main mast. You have to ignore Victorian folk stories sometimes Mutton.
Post by Morten St. George
The painting clearly depicts a celebration, and what more did Elizabeth ever have to celebrate than her victory over the Spanish Armada?
I have said what it shows. There are no signs of any ship references, the crescent moon for example.
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Elizabethan's didn't go in for ghosts or dead people.
What? There are no ghosts in Shakespeare?
In paintings dumb dumb...
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Spanish didn't give a sod who was Queen, they just wanted to invade.
Didn’t the Pope promise to pay Philip big bucks for installing a Catholic on the thrown of England? Do you know of any Catholic who had better rights to the thrown than Mary?
Marie wasn't Catholic. She would change her religion if she wanted to. The Duke of Norfolk for example who was executed wasn't Catholic. But she wanted to marry him. When he pointed out that he wasn't of her religion, she said she would change her religion. In fact Mary Stuart was in trouble with the Pope for marrying Bothwell, who was Protestant and already married. Philip wanted to invade England because Elizabeth had insulted him when he offered to marry her.
The Pope also said he wouldn't minded marrying Elizabeth!
Post by Morten St. George
When Mary got her head chopped off, her wig fell fell off, revealing that she had short grayish hair. The painting reveals both, her natural short hair up front and the wig on the back of her head.
There's a death mask of Mary Stuart at Lenexlove house, that's what Mary looked like. Mary Stuart I repeat would not be in any picture with the Queen.
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I have seen no discussions anywhere where any Stratford people have said this picture is set in France. Perhaps you could direct me to where you have got this idea?
As you know, I use the term "Stratfordian" to refer to anyone who tries to hinder uncovering the truth about Shakespearean authorship.
Wikipedia writes "Despite its mocking title, Queen Elizabeth I Dancing with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, this painting of the lavolta is from the French Valois school and depicts unknown dancers. It is currently in Penshurst Place in Kent."
A lot of Wikipedia is absolute rubbish. It's very clearly Elizabeth. The Queen was dancing well into her 60's. It's highly unlikely that a French picture would be found in an English House. A test on the wood it's painted on should show it to be of English wood. So ask for it to be tested. On the other if you look up Penshurst on the internet, then you will see it was the home of Sir Philip Sidney. And the fact that a man that looks like Sir Philip Sidney in the fireplace is a huge coincidence don't you think?
As you are hindering the truth about Shakespeare, are you thus another Stratfordian?
Post by Morten St. George
Well, once you remove Elizabeth and Dudley from the picture, isn’t it pretty obvious that the setting has to be France?
Not a bit like a French court scene. The fireplace alone points to an English design. The pike men too are clearly English.
Post by Morten St. George
My internet subscription expires tomorrow and I might not renew it to get a few days of peace and quiet.
Yes they must be missing you in the Asylum.
Try reading some Shakespeare plays instead. You might realise that you are barking up the wrong tree. If you weren't already barking mad!
Is there anyone besides you who sees Sir Philip Sidney in that painting?

Penshurst Place does connect with Philip, but wasn’t it also the home Mary Dudley, sister of Robert Dudley? And didn’t Philip’s siblings express interest in the arts?

In case you don’t know it, in a painting you depict a ghost as a miniature person, and you are still failing to identify that dame. Even it were Queen Jane, rather than the Queen of Scots, the painting would still be a celebration of the defeat of the Spanish Armada, a great victory for Protestantism over Catholicism.

The painter was very likely a French Huguenot, and he could have made that painting some time after the defeat of the Armada from depictions provided to him.
A***@germanymail.com
2016-11-28 20:09:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Later depictions of Robert show he had become very fat. This picture is much earlier than the Armada.
Isn’t Elizabeth’s bloating dress obstructing view of Robert’s pot belly?
No!
Post by Morten St. George
The guy to the right of Elizabeth very closely matches a picture of Sir Francis Drake, so maybe the guy near the fireplace is the young Lord Admiral for whom we seem to have only old-man pictures.
We might think a lot of Drake due to some stories, but the Queen thought otherwise. It was Howard Lord Effingham who was the main person in her eyes. Armada historians say that Drake's ship never took part in the main battle as it had split it's main mast. You have to ignore Victorian folk stories sometimes Mutton.
Post by Morten St. George
The painting clearly depicts a celebration, and what more did Elizabeth ever have to celebrate than her victory over the Spanish Armada?
I have said what it shows. There are no signs of any ship references, the crescent moon for example.
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Elizabethan's didn't go in for ghosts or dead people.
What? There are no ghosts in Shakespeare?
In paintings dumb dumb...
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Spanish didn't give a sod who was Queen, they just wanted to invade.
Didn’t the Pope promise to pay Philip big bucks for installing a Catholic on the thrown of England? Do you know of any Catholic who had better rights to the thrown than Mary?
Marie wasn't Catholic. She would change her religion if she wanted to. The Duke of Norfolk for example who was executed wasn't Catholic. But she wanted to marry him. When he pointed out that he wasn't of her religion, she said she would change her religion. In fact Mary Stuart was in trouble with the Pope for marrying Bothwell, who was Protestant and already married. Philip wanted to invade England because Elizabeth had insulted him when he offered to marry her.
The Pope also said he wouldn't minded marrying Elizabeth!
Post by Morten St. George
When Mary got her head chopped off, her wig fell fell off, revealing that she had short grayish hair. The painting reveals both, her natural short hair up front and the wig on the back of her head.
There's a death mask of Mary Stuart at Lenexlove house, that's what Mary looked like. Mary Stuart I repeat would not be in any picture with the Queen.
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I have seen no discussions anywhere where any Stratford people have said this picture is set in France. Perhaps you could direct me to where you have got this idea?
As you know, I use the term "Stratfordian" to refer to anyone who tries to hinder uncovering the truth about Shakespearean authorship.
Wikipedia writes "Despite its mocking title, Queen Elizabeth I Dancing with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, this painting of the lavolta is from the French Valois school and depicts unknown dancers. It is currently in Penshurst Place in Kent."
A lot of Wikipedia is absolute rubbish. It's very clearly Elizabeth. The Queen was dancing well into her 60's. It's highly unlikely that a French picture would be found in an English House. A test on the wood it's painted on should show it to be of English wood. So ask for it to be tested. On the other if you look up Penshurst on the internet, then you will see it was the home of Sir Philip Sidney. And the fact that a man that looks like Sir Philip Sidney in the fireplace is a huge coincidence don't you think?
As you are hindering the truth about Shakespeare, are you thus another Stratfordian?
Post by Morten St. George
Well, once you remove Elizabeth and Dudley from the picture, isn’t it pretty obvious that the setting has to be France?
Not a bit like a French court scene. The fireplace alone points to an English design. The pike men too are clearly English.
Post by Morten St. George
My internet subscription expires tomorrow and I might not renew it to get a few days of peace and quiet.
Yes they must be missing you in the Asylum.
Try reading some Shakespeare plays instead. You might realise that you are barking up the wrong tree. If you weren't already barking mad!
Is there anyone besides you who sees Sir Philip Sidney in that painting?
Penshurst Place does connect with Philip, but wasn’t it also the home Mary Dudley, sister of Robert Dudley? And didn’t Philip’s siblings express interest in the arts?
In case you don’t know it, in a painting you depict a ghost as a miniature person, and you are still failing to identify that dame. Even it were Queen Jane, rather than the Queen of Scots, the painting would still be a celebration of the defeat of the Spanish Armada, a great victory for Protestantism over Catholicism.
The painter was very likely a French Huguenot, and he could have made that painting some time after the defeat of the Armada from depictions provided to him.
Art N
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-28 20:20:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Is there anyone besides you who sees Sir Philip Sidney in that painting?
No idea, who cares if they do or don't.

This is a picture of Sidney. He looks like him to me, that's all that matters, plus the pictures is in his home!
Loading Image...
Post by Morten St. George
Penshurst Place does connect with Philip, but wasn’t it also the home Mary Dudley, sister of Robert Dudley? And didn’t Philip’s siblings express interest in the arts?
Your point?...
Post by Morten St. George
In case you don’t know it, in a painting you depict a ghost as a miniature person, and you are still failing to identify that dame. Even it were Queen Jane, rather than the Queen of Scots, the painting would still be a celebration of the defeat of the Spanish Armada, a great victory for Protestantism over Catholicism.
Queen Jane?
The Wardrobe accounts identify a dwarf woman in the court of Elizabeth with the name Ippolyta. So we know Elizabeth had dwarf women in her company. We don't know what they looked like. If it is her it would explain her presence in this picture. Ippolyta appears in the accounts in 1564, but we don't know how old she was then.
I don't call her a "ghost" at all. Why would they make Mary Stuart small anyway? It doesn't make sense.
Identifying Elizabethan woman is very hard. Much harder than men. Men were allowed at court, their wives were not. Men tended to have their portraits painted, women less so. Most women are identified by the funeral monuments more often than not, as this website shows.
http://www.kateemersonhistoricals.com/TudorWomenIndex.htm

The young woman in red might be Lucy another connection to Philip. I would be guessing at the woman with the fan. Between her and the Queen, is either Walsingham or Hatton. The silver dressed man could be Howard.

I would rule out any connection with the Armada, it's clearly before then. There is no indication of connection with it at all. Since Robert died shortly afterwards, to depict the Queen dancing with him is totally ridiculas. Nobody would have commissioned a picture, knowing how the Queen felt. Beside this is not the Elizabethan way. They didn't celebrate things like we do. They praised God for the Queen being successful in her endeavours.
This picture is simply showing how wonderful things are with a Queen like ours. And that God has shined his light on her.
Post by Morten St. George
The painter was very likely a French Huguenot, and he could have made that painting some time after the defeat of the Armada from depictions provided to him.
As I said nobody would have commissioned at artist to paint a picture showing Robert Dudley and the Queen dancing after the defeat of the armada.
laraine
2016-11-28 20:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:01:51 PM UTC-6, Morten St. George wrote:
....
Post by Morten St. George
I disagree that the miniature woman is a physical dwarf because I saw a dwarf couple dancing in another painting by that artist. The miniature woman is very likely not in attendance at the dance at all because she is dead; from her grave she’s looking in envy upon Queen Elizabeth in all her glory. With short hair noticeable, she’s probably Mary, Queen of Scots, beheaded before the Spanish Armada could liberate her and make her queen.
Just as an aside, I noticed something on the first pages of some old historical
fiction (by John Hale) about Mary, Queen of Scots.

Catherine de' Medici is visiting her son Francis II and his wife
Mary QS:
"Behind [Catherine] hurried a [male] dwarf, dressed as a jester,
leading an ape by a chain"

Wonder from what country such apes came.

Very brief flashback of Nostradamus with Catherine too, as he is
predicting danger to Henry II.

Probably a lot of liberties in that book, but I don't know for sure.

C.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-29 00:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by laraine
Just as an aside, I noticed something on the first pages of some old historical
fiction (by John Hale) about Mary, Queen of Scots.
Catherine de' Medici is visiting her son Francis II and his wife
"Behind [Catherine] hurried a [male] dwarf, dressed as a jester,
leading an ape by a chain"
Wonder from what country such apes came.
Very brief flashback of Nostradamus with Catherine too, as he is
predicting danger to Henry II.
Africa of course. The Tower of London was full of exotic animals. In the film The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, Essex brings back to England a monkey.
It's likely most of the monarchs had dwarfs in the court. They were well treated and trusted companies of the Kings and Queens.
Post by laraine
Probably a lot of liberties in that book, but I don't know for sure.
C.
Even historians take liberties with Mary Queen of Scots.

The best way to imagine Mary's story is to switch it to modern times.
For example let's say that the English people and Government chuck out Queen Elizabeth II, kick her off the throne. They stick her in a prison. The American's and the world think the English had no right to do this to the Queen. However some people help her escape from prison and without asking permission to go there, the Queen escapes to America. Now because she is an illegal citizen, and also a Queen. The American authorities detain her in a special building. However as you know the American people are not in favour of the monarchy, especially English ones, so tight security is needed all the time. There is also the possibility of English people shooting the Queen. However the American president decides to treat the Queen as a Queen and house her in luxury apartments, at the tax payers expense. This goes on several years. Meanwhile the Queen is plotting with American citizens to overthrow the democracy of the USA and kill the President. The President however believes that the Queen is a good person who was wrong done by. The CIA however uncover several plots and finely a group of Americans with the intention of killing the President, get pass the CIA security and shoot at the President. But they miss. However they find out that Queen is guilty. But 10 years before, the death penalty had be completely abolished in the USA on the grounds it was immoral to kill someone. But the entire country is calling for the death of the English Queen. So a new law is passed. That if the Queen ever tries this again. Any citizen of the USA is legally allowed to kill the Queen. So the Queen the Queen's security is stepped up and she is kept under close guard. But this doesn't stop her and she tries again.
The President comes under great pressure to stop it, but because the ending of the death penalty was his idea and cornerstone of his moral stance. He is unable to order the death. So he signs the death warranty. However it is not officially legal till it has the presidential seal attached. But he goes on national TV and shows the paper and says to any supporters of the Queen. That if they attempt any more plots he will attach the Seal and have her executed.
However afterwards in a garbled message one junior official has the Presidential Seal attached. He shows it to the President the next day and the President has him sacked. So he goes to the Senate and shows them the death warrant and they decide to send it off to the prison where Queen Elizabeth II is now held in. And she is executed, without the President knowing. Afterwards the President makes certain all the people who took the decision get kicked out of Office. But the fact that she was executed breaks him morally. And he never gets over it, though he elected several more times and is regarded after his death in office of natural causes as one of America's finest President.
laraine
2016-11-29 18:45:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by laraine
Just as an aside, I noticed something on the first pages of some old historical
fiction (by John Hale) about Mary, Queen of Scots.
Catherine de' Medici is visiting her son Francis II and his wife
"Behind [Catherine] hurried a [male] dwarf, dressed as a jester,
leading an ape by a chain"
Wonder from what country such apes came.
Very brief flashback of Nostradamus with Catherine too, as he is
predicting danger to Henry II.
Africa of course.
Or Asia.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Tower of London was full of exotic animals.
Right --I'd forgotten about that.
http://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/visit-us/top-things-to-see-and-do/royal-beasts/the-royal-menagerie/the-beasts-within/#gs.BFLk1SQ
Post by g***@btinternet.com
In the film The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, Essex brings back to England a monkey.
It's likely most of the monarchs had dwarfs in the court. They were well treated and trusted companies of the Kings and Queens.
Post by laraine
Probably a lot of liberties in that book, but I don't know for sure.
C.
Even historians take liberties with Mary Queen of Scots.
The best way to imagine Mary's story is to switch it to modern times.
For example let's say that the English people and Government chuck out Queen Elizabeth II, kick her off the throne. They stick her in a prison. The American's and the world think the English had no right to do this to the Queen. However some people help her escape from prison and without asking permission to go there, the Queen escapes to America. Now because she is an illegal citizen, and also a Queen. The American authorities detain her in a special building. However as you know the American people are not in favour of the monarchy, especially English ones, so tight security is needed all the time. There is also the possibility of English people shooting the Queen. However the American president decides to treat the Queen as a Queen and house her in luxury apartments, at the tax payers expense. This goes on several years. Meanwhile the Queen is plotting with American citizens to overthrow the democracy of the USA and kill the President. The President however believes that the Queen is a good person who was wrong done by. The CIA however uncover several plots and finely a group of Americans with the intention of killing the President, get pass the CIA security and shoot at the President. But they miss. However they find out that Queen is guilty. But 10 years before, the death penalty had be completely abolished in the USA on the grounds it was immoral to kill someone. But the entire country is calling for the death of the English Queen. So a new law is passed. That if the Queen ever tries this again. Any citizen of the USA is legally allowed to kill the Queen. So the Queen the Queen's security is stepped up and she is kept under close guard. But this doesn't stop her and she tries again.
The President comes under great pressure to stop it, but because the ending of the death penalty was his idea and cornerstone of his moral stance. He is unable to order the death. So he signs the death warranty. However it is not officially legal till it has the presidential seal attached. But he goes on national TV and shows the paper and says to any supporters of the Queen. That if they attempt any more plots he will attach the Seal and have her executed.
However afterwards in a garbled message one junior official has the Presidential Seal attached. He shows it to the President the next day and the President has him sacked. So he goes to the Senate and shows them the death warrant and they decide to send it off to the prison where Queen Elizabeth II is now held in. And she is executed, without the President knowing. Afterwards the President makes certain all the people who took the decision get kicked out of Office. But the fact that she was executed breaks him morally. And he never gets over it, though he elected several more times and is regarded after his death in office of natural causes as one of America's finest President.
Thanks for that. I am aware of the sketchy details of all of it,
but would like to read a lot more.

You need a sound effect for the E&D painting.
I will search for a Byrd or similar "La Volta".
Perhaps that is the appropriate dance.

C.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-29 20:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by laraine
Thanks for that. I am aware of the sketchy details of all of it,
but would like to read a lot more.
You need a sound effect for the E&D painting.
I will search for a Byrd or similar "La Volta".
Perhaps that is the appropriate dance.
C.
Actually I came to Shakespeare via Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth. You see I was born in a now demolished house in Queen Mary Road Sheffield. And there was this old wall at the bottom of our garden. Investigations into the wall turned out to a boundary for the former Sheffield Park. The centre of which had the now ruined Manor house, where it just so happened Mary Stuart spent 14 years!
More research and I found out that the entire building had been specially built to keep Mary Stuart. But I kept hitting the brick wall of what she was doing there. Why didn't Elizabeth have her head chopped off straight away? As soon as she landed in England. I found out that George Talbot, who by the way was a terrible speller, was given instructions to treat Mary like a Queen, but not let her escape. Elizabeth told him that she trusted him like few she did. Now this got me thinking as to why she didn't trust people. And I came to the conclusion she was shy. I found loads of evidence to back this up. And shortly after that concluded that Queen Elizabeth was a very beautiful woman. However nobody could convince her that she was. She also had very high principals. So that meant everything had to be seen to be above board. The only trouble with that, is few other people matched up to the principals. And Mary Stuart without doubt didn't. In fact I was able to conclude that Mary Stuart was a psychopath. Not the extreme sort that kills people, but on those lines. For example to her religion was just a tool to get people on her side. She was also the kind of woman that in the case of men would get really close to them, (in your face they say now) even when just talking. It didn't matter if it was a married man. She was also a real snob. For example she liked to bath in wine!
Anyway I put all this research together and into a book. Which you can get free in PDF format from my blog.
http://therealchart.blogspot.co.uk/p/william-shakespeare-and-queen-elizabeth.html

I called it The Shy Queen and The Psychopathic Queen. Some say it needs editing a bit, but at least it's out there! It's at the bottom of the page!
After writing that I started looking for other references to Elizabeth being beautiful and that's where I found the Shakespeare link.
laraine
2016-12-01 04:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by laraine
You need a sound effect for the E&D painting.
I will search for a Byrd or similar "La Volta".
Perhaps that is the appropriate dance.
C.
There are lots of YouTube recordings of one of Byrd's La Volta
pieces, and one good Renaissance dance video using it from
The Playfords Ensemble that you call all look up if you want.
Yet the painting seems to show something a little different.

Here are some John Dowland galliards:


C.
Morten St. George
2016-11-29 01:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by laraine
Catherine de' Medici is visiting her son Francis II and his wife
"Behind [Catherine] hurried a [male] dwarf, dressed as a jester,
leading an ape by a chain"
Wonder from what country such apes came.
Are you insinuating that the dog in Graham's painting is really a white monkey? Graham, please tell us what type of dog it is so that we can check it out.
marco
2016-11-29 02:55:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by laraine
Catherine de' Medici is visiting her son Francis II and his wife
"Behind [Catherine] hurried a [male] dwarf, dressed as a jester,
leading an ape by a chain"
Wonder from what country such apes came.
Are you insinuating that the dog in Graham's painting is really a white monkey? Graham, please tell us what type of dog it is so that we can check it out.
.
laraine
2016-11-29 17:42:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by laraine
Catherine de' Medici is visiting her son Francis II and his wife
"Behind [Catherine] hurried a [male] dwarf, dressed as a jester,
leading an ape by a chain"
Wonder from what country such apes came.
Are you insinuating that the dog in Graham's painting is really a white monkey? Graham, please tell us what type of dog it is so that we can check it out.
Well, I don't generally insinuate things, but this
sounds like fun.

So the meaning of ('is really' a white monkey)
would likely be ('represents' a white monkey) for you.

Here is the painting I believe you're discussing:
Loading Image...

I like the 'haircut' on the dog!

Here is an almost whitish baboon, maybe slightly similar:
Loading Image...

And a Ty stuffed toy white monkey:
https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/262644633/white-plush-monkey-vintage-ty-monkey?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=vintage&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=&ref=sr_gallery_8

C.
laraine
2016-11-29 19:33:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by laraine
Catherine de' Medici is visiting her son Francis II and his wife
"Behind [Catherine] hurried a [male] dwarf, dressed as a jester,
leading an ape by a chain"
Wonder from what country such apes came.
Are you insinuating that the dog in Graham's painting is really a white monkey? Graham, please tell us what type of dog it is so that we can check it out.
Well, I don't generally insinuate things, but this
sounds like fun.

So the meaning of ('is really' a white monkey)
would likely be ('represents' a white monkey) for you, or derives from one?...

Here is the painting I believe you're discussing:
http://www.fineart-china.com/admin/images/new19/unknow%20artist-843753.jpg

I like the 'haircut' on the dog!

Hard to find something similar with white monkeys:
http://pixdaus.com/white-monkeys/items/view/51152/


And a Ty stuffed toy white monkey:
https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/262644633/white-plush-monkey-vintage-ty-monkey?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=vintage&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=&ref=sr_gallery_8

C.
Morten St. George
2016-11-29 20:12:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by laraine
Well, I don't generally insinuate things, but this
sounds like fun.
So the meaning of ('is really' a white monkey)
would likely be ('represents' a white monkey) for you, or derives from one?...
http://www.fineart-china.com/admin/images/new19/unknow%20artist-843753.jpg
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about that painting when referring to dwarfs and apes, and then linking it all to Mary QS. Graham and I had been arguing on whether or not the miniature woman was Mary QS. What then were you talking about?

I don't know if it's an ape or a dog and that's why I'm inquiring about it. If it's an ape, I'd have to change my mind about Elizabeth dancing with Dudley and have her dancing with Edward de Vere instead. But that's a long story.
Post by laraine
I like the 'haircut' on the dog!
http://pixdaus.com/white-monkeys/items/view/51152/
I did Google image searches for "exotic monkeys" and "exotic dogs" and can't pick a clear winner. But you're probably right, it's just a dog.
A***@germanymail.com
2016-11-29 21:39:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by laraine
Well, I don't generally insinuate things, but this
sounds like fun.
So the meaning of ('is really' a white monkey)
would likely be ('represents' a white monkey) for you, or derives from one?...
http://www.fineart-china.com/admin/images/new19/unknow%20artist-843753.jpg
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about that painting when referring to dwarfs and apes, and then linking it all to Mary QS. Graham and I had been arguing on whether or not the miniature woman was Mary QS. What then were you talking about?
I don't know if it's an ape or a dog and that's why I'm inquiring about it. If it's an ape, I'd have to change my mind about Elizabeth dancing with Dudley and have her dancing with Edward de Vere instead. But that's a long story.
Post by laraine
I like the 'haircut' on the dog!
http://pixdaus.com/white-monkeys/items/view/51152/
I did Google image searches for "exotic monkeys" and "exotic dogs" and can't pick a clear winner. But you're probably right, it's just a dog.
Art N
laraine
2016-11-30 01:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by laraine
Well, I don't generally insinuate things, but this
sounds like fun.
So the meaning of ('is really' a white monkey)
would likely be ('represents' a white monkey) for you, or derives from one?...
http://www.fineart-china.com/admin/images/new19/unknow%20artist-843753.jpg
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about that painting when referring to dwarfs and apes, and then linking it all to Mary QS. Graham and I had been arguing on whether or not the miniature woman was Mary QS. What then were you talking about?
I meant the focus to be more on the dwarf and on France,
but it really was an aside, just something to share.
Actually, it seems that Catherine dM did indeed
keep dwarfs.

And Velázquez painted several dwarfs in 17th c. Spain,
for comparison.

As far as Mary as being a 'ghost' in the painting,
I had been thinking her style of dress seems different
from what is in that painting, for one thing.

I did have one or two other thoughts about the
animals, but I'll have to wait on that until I
know more.

C.
Morten St. George
2016-11-30 14:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by laraine
I meant the focus to be more on the dwarf and on France,
but it really was an aside, just something to share.
Actually, it seems that Catherine dM did indeed
keep dwarfs.
And Velázquez painted several dwarfs in 17th c. Spain,
for comparison.
As far as Mary as being a 'ghost' in the painting,
I had been thinking her style of dress seems different
from what is in that painting, for one thing.
I’m sure you know a lot more about female dress than I do, and it does seem her dress (from extant paintings) was generally a lot more puritanical than displayed in our painting. But I did see a couple depictions of her with those wide-armed things. Can a woman’s dress be dependent upon the occasion?

It was mostly her hair style that made me think of Mary QS. What’s your opinion on short natural hair up front and a wig pegged on to the back of her head? Recall the beheading story.

Artists have been known to employ symbolism in their work. The miniature female in our painting has the correct proportions of a normal adult woman, not the deformed proportions of a dwarf, so I’m pretty sure it represents someone (likely dead) who is not physically present at the dance.
Post by laraine
I did have one or two other thoughts about the
animals, but I'll have to wait on that until I
know more.
Looking at pictures, I see that the bottom-most part of dogs’ legs tend to bend from back to front, whereas the bottom-most part of monkeys’ legs, like human legs, tend to bend at the knee from front to back, which is what I believe we see in our painting. A Google image search on "long haired monkeys" might also prove helpful. Anyway, I eagerly await your determination on whether it’s a dog or a monkey.

The reason it matters is that I suspect the animal’s owner could be the guy sitting down next to it, the one carrying the sword (a sign of being knighted) and even without the monkey, I believe he is a famous English navigator who carried on trading activities in the Philippines and in Java. But here’s the problem: his ship (the queen herself dined on it) did not return to England until 9 September 1588, five days after the death of Robert Dudley. That would make it difficult for Elizabeth to be dancing with Dudley, wouldn’t it.

Wasn’t Edward de Vere famous for being the best dancer at the royal court? It would make sense for Elizabeth to be dancing with him in these celebrations known to have occurred later in 1588, simultaneously celebrating the navigator’s successful mission and the victory over the Armada. So, Laraine, what do you think? Could Elizabeth’s dancing partner be De Vere rather than Dudley?
A***@germanymail.com
2016-11-30 22:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by laraine
I meant the focus to be more on the dwarf and on France,
but it really was an aside, just something to share.
Actually, it seems that Catherine dM did indeed
keep dwarfs.
And Velázquez painted several dwarfs in 17th c. Spain,
for comparison.
As far as Mary as being a 'ghost' in the painting,
I had been thinking her style of dress seems different
from what is in that painting, for one thing.
I’m sure you know a lot more about female dress than I do, and it does seem her dress (from extant paintings) was generally a lot more puritanical than displayed in our painting. But I did see a couple depictions of her with those wide-armed things. Can a woman’s dress be dependent upon the occasion?
It was mostly her hair style that made me think of Mary QS. What’s your opinion on short natural hair up front and a wig pegged on to the back of her head? Recall the beheading story.
Artists have been known to employ symbolism in their work. The miniature female in our painting has the correct proportions of a normal adult woman, not the deformed proportions of a dwarf, so I’m pretty sure it represents someone (likely dead) who is not physically present at the dance.
Post by laraine
I did have one or two other thoughts about the
animals, but I'll have to wait on that until I
know more.
Looking at pictures, I see that the bottom-most part of dogs’ legs tend to bend from back to front, whereas the bottom-most part of monkeys’ legs, like human legs, tend to bend at the knee from front to back, which is what I believe we see in our painting. A Google image search on "long haired monkeys" might also prove helpful. Anyway, I eagerly await your determination on whether it’s a dog or a monkey.
The reason it matters is that I suspect the animal’s owner could be the guy sitting down next to it, the one carrying the sword (a sign of being knighted) and even without the monkey, I believe he is a famous English navigator who carried on trading activities in the Philippines and in Java. But here’s the problem: his ship (the queen herself dined on it) did not return to England until 9 September 1588, five days after the death of Robert Dudley. That would make it difficult for Elizabeth to be dancing with Dudley, wouldn’t it.
Wasn’t Edward de Vere famous for being the best dancer at the royal court? It would make sense for Elizabeth to be dancing with him in these celebrations known to have occurred later in 1588, simultaneously celebrating the navigator’s successful mission and the victory over the Armada. So, Laraine, what do you think? Could Elizabeth’s dancing partner be De Vere rather than Dudley?
Art N
g***@btinternet.com
2016-12-01 00:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
I’m sure you know a lot more about female dress than I do, and it does seem her dress (from extant paintings) was generally a lot more puritanical than displayed in our painting. But I did see a couple depictions of her with those wide-armed things. Can a woman’s dress be dependent upon the occasion?
The answer is no. Elizabeth for example changed the colour of her clothes every day.
Post by Morten St. George
It was mostly her hair style that made me think of Mary QS. What’s your opinion on short natural hair up front and a wig pegged on to the back of her head? Recall the beheading story.
Knolly's said that Mary Stuart changed her hair style regular. She did have the best hairdresser in the land. It's unlikely any artist picked up on the style of her hair and even the use of a wig. The thyroid condition that Mary suffered from would have caused her hair to go white practically overnight.
You also have to be very careful with colour on Elizabethan painting. The colours used are not stable. After 400 years a brown colour might go black. A good example is the Rainbow Portrait of Elizabeth 1st. There is a perfect colour chart on it - the Rainbow.
Loading Image...

If you look at the Rainbow it looks like a back of chair. So where is the yellow, blue, green, red etc of the Rainbow?
If that has happened to the Rainbow imagine what has happened to the colours on the rest of the picture.
Post by Morten St. George
Artists have been known to employ symbolism in their work. The miniature female in our painting has the correct proportions of a normal adult woman, not the deformed proportions of a dwarf, so I’m pretty sure it represents someone (likely dead) who is not physically present at the dance.
I think that you would find that small woman would be around at that time. Mary Stuart was over 6ft tall, it doesn't make sense to have her in a picture with Queen Elizabeth. There are no other pictures painted at that time which show the two Queens together. Nor does it make sense to have Mary at the celebration of the victory over the Spanish. Which this picture I repeat is not about. Neither would Elizabeth be happy with the picture if the artist had depicted Mary. For Elizabeth regretted having Mary executed and this would be like rubbing her nose in it.
Post by Morten St. George
Post by laraine
I did have one or two other thoughts about the
animals, but I'll have to wait on that until I
know more.
Looking at pictures, I see that the bottom-most part of dogs’ legs tend to bend from back to front, whereas the bottom-most part of monkeys’ legs, like human legs, tend to bend at the knee from front to back, which is what I believe we see in our painting. A Google image search on "long haired monkeys" might also prove helpful. Anyway, I eagerly await your determination on whether it’s a dog or a monkey.
It's a dog. The Dog represent faithfulness and loyalty.
Post by Morten St. George
The reason it matters is that I suspect the animal’s owner could be the guy sitting down next to it, the one carrying the sword (a sign of being knighted)
Most of the male members of court carried swords.
and even without the monkey, I believe he is a famous English navigator who carried on trading activities in the Philippines and in Java. But here’s the problem: his ship (the queen herself dined on it) did not return to England until 9 September 1588, five days after the death of Robert Dudley. That would make it difficult for Elizabeth to be dancing with Dudley, wouldn’t it.
But if you still think he's a sir then it's Lord William Howard.
Post by Morten St. George
Wasn’t Edward de Vere famous for being the best dancer at the royal court? It would make sense for Elizabeth to be dancing with him in these celebrations known to have occurred later in 1588, simultaneously celebrating the navigator’s successful mission and the victory over the Armada. So, Laraine, what do you think? Could Elizabeth’s dancing partner be De Vere rather than Dudley?
No, because it's dated to the early 1580's. Because William Shakespeare is present on the far left, younger than the 1588 image of him, but still wearing the same hat. Secondly Elizabeth got a bit fatter around the time of the armada, but lost it later. And she's far from fat in this picture.
laraine
2016-12-01 01:59:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Morten St. George
Wasn’t Edward de Vere famous for being the best dancer at the royal court? It would make sense for Elizabeth to be dancing with him in these celebrations known to have occurred later in 1588, simultaneously celebrating the navigator’s successful mission and the victory over the Armada. So, Laraine, what do you think? Could Elizabeth’s dancing partner be De Vere rather than Dudley?
No, because it's dated to the early 1580's.
Earlier than I had thought...
Mary QS dies in 1587.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because William Shakespeare is present on the far left, younger than the 1588 image of him, but still wearing the same hat.
The miniature guy! Still quite a bit taller than the
lady we're calling a dwarf.

Perhaps this painter is using, IINM, an older art fashion of
making people different-sized. Didn't think of that before.
It gives the circular pattern some smoothness too, and 'dog'
is somewhat in foreground.

C.
Morten St. George
2016-12-01 14:50:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by laraine
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because William Shakespeare is present on the far left, younger than the 1588 image of him, but still wearing the same hat.
The miniature guy! Still quite a bit taller than the
lady we're calling a dwarf.
And I was going to argue that he was Christopher Marlowe! But I am now dropping all speculation on that painting: it seems miniature people and dogs were standard features of that artist's style so we really can't draw any conclusions about it with a high degree of confidence.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-12-01 16:42:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by laraine
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because William Shakespeare is present on the far left, younger than the 1588 image of him, but still wearing the same hat.
The miniature guy! Still quite a bit taller than the
lady we're calling a dwarf.
And I was going to argue that he was Christopher Marlowe! But I am now dropping all speculation on that painting: it seems miniature people and dogs were standard features of that artist's style so we really can't draw any conclusions about it with a high degree of confidence.
Marlowe is the one above Shakespeare. He spent more time with the entertainers than going to University. He only got his degree because of class privilege. He was also talented spotted by the Queen. How else do explain a cobbler's so going to university. The Queen offered him the place there! She did the same to Shakespeare, but he was too wise or stubborn to except, besides the people at his school were having a go at the Queen all the time. And Shakespeare would have none of that.
marco
2016-12-07 16:11:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Morten St. George
Post by laraine
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because William Shakespeare is present on the far left, younger than the 1588 image of him, but still wearing the same hat.
The miniature guy! Still quite a bit taller than the
lady we're calling a dwarf.
And I was going to argue that he was Christopher Marlowe! But I am now dropping all speculation on that painting: it seems miniature people and dogs were standard features of that artist's style so we really can't draw any conclusions about it with a high degree of confidence.
Marlowe is the one above Shakespeare. He spent more time with the entertainers than going to University. He only got his degree because of class privilege. He was also talented spotted by the Queen. How else do explain a cobbler's so going to university. The Queen offered him the place there! She did the same to Shakespeare, but he was too wise or stubborn to except, besides the people at his school were having a go at the Queen all the time. And Shakespeare would have none of that.
.
Morten St. George
2016-12-07 18:15:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Queen Elizabeth dancing.
http://www.rmg.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/slider/public/Robert_Dudley_Elizabeth_Dancing.jpg?itok=h-QkUSM1
Here’s another painting apparently by the same artist that might refute your notion that this painting depicts Queen Elizabeth dancing:

Loading Image...

It reflects a dance at the Valois court in France. The problem is not so much the "monkey" reappearing here in the spirit world but the fireplace in the background. It’s essentially the same fireplace we see on the right-hand side of the alleged Elizabeth painting.

Does this mean that the guy playing the large viol cannot be Shakespeare and that the page to his right cannot be Marlowe? Probably. But I can say this much: If the Rosicrucians wanted to portray members of their secret society, they would almost certainly do it in a highly disguised fashion, such as by having the artist place them all in a French court!
g***@btinternet.com
2016-12-08 00:32:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Queen Elizabeth dancing.
http://www.rmg.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/slider/public/Robert_Dudley_Elizabeth_Dancing.jpg?itok=h-QkUSM1
http://cornucopia16.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/384_4.jpg
It reflects a dance at the Valois court in France. The problem is not so much the "monkey" reappearing here in the spirit world but the fireplace in the background. It’s essentially the same fireplace we see on the right-hand side of the alleged Elizabeth painting.
This is not the French Court. It's the Scottish Court. The woman dancing is Mary Queen of Scots. Probably with Robert Dudley. Elizabeth sent him to the Scottish Court to marry Mary Stuart. The Fireplace is not a fireplace but the hood above a Royal Throne. Robert Dudley was responsible for the court entertainers. He presumably took them with him to the Scottish Court. You are right it is French in style, but Mary Stuart spent most of her life in France. She lived the same decadent lifestyle of the French Court and it's influence can be seen in the picture.

That's how it should be viewed.

In fact it's NOT the Scottish Court. It's one of the houses were Mary was kept in Custody. Remarkable as it seems we have the impression that Mary was locked up under strict guard. In fact that is only the case in her later years of confinement. At first she was treated exactly like a Queen. There was even a Royal throne, exactly as depicted in the painting. She had her own court attendants and ladies in waiting. All sorts of people went to see her, including foreign ambassadors. Robert Dudley was sent to see Mary while in captivity and men of his standing did not travel in small groups. They took loads of people with them. Mary of course was brought up in the French Court and spoke mostly French. So that's why it looks French.
Artist would have been sent backwards and forwards between the two monarchs. And paintings would result. It's how they operated. There was also rivalry between the two Queens. With one trying to outdo the other.
Post by Morten St. George
Does this mean that the guy playing the large viol cannot be Shakespeare and that the page to his right cannot be Marlowe? Probably. But I can say this much: If the Rosicrucians wanted to portray members of their secret society, they would almost certainly do it in a highly disguised fashion, such as by having the artist place them all in a French court!
He never was Shakespeare and of course since you have no idea about painting in Elizabethan times, you are making things up. A secret society doesn't commission painters. Artist don't come cheap either. Only people with money or who patronised the arts could afford them.
To give you a clue into how much money the English spent on Mary Stuart, though we don't have full listings of all her time spent in England. We do know the state spent £10,000 in the last two years of her life. Mary Stuart had also a considerable fortune. As William Cecil, found out the Duke of Norfolk was using some of to finance his own designs. Which resulted in the Duke being executed. In fact the Duke was a traitor to both Queens. Something that is not widely known.
Morten St. George
2016-12-08 15:14:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Fireplace is not a fireplace but the hood above a Royal Throne.
Gosh, just last week you were telling me that it was a fireplace. Please make up your mind! You actually convinced me on the fireplace because the gal in front of it is clearly suffering from the emitted heat and that’s why she is waving a hand fan, and the left side of the gentleman near the fireplace is painted red, reflecting the nearby fire. In any case, regardless of whether it’s a fireplace or a throne, it’s the same in both paintings.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
A secret society doesn't commission painters.
Well, if they can place Shakespeare’s picture on the cover of a botany book, why not situate a family portrait in France, with Shakespeare playing a large viol?

You got to follow the eyes. That has to be Dudley, a man in love, staring directly at Elizabeth. The deceased Queen Jane, in miniature, is looking upwards toward her son, John Florio, just to the right of Elizabeth. Marlowe, far left, is looking across to his master, Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa on the far right. Sir Thomas Cavendish, sitting to the right of his monkey, is also looking toward Pedro, his friend. Over on the left, Giordano Bruno is playing the fiddle.

To each his own fantasy!
g***@btinternet.com
2016-12-08 17:13:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Fireplace is not a fireplace but the hood above a Royal Throne.
Gosh, just last week you were telling me that it was a fireplace. Please make up your mind! You actually convinced me on the fireplace because the gal in front of it is clearly suffering from the emitted heat and that’s why she is waving a hand fan, and the left side of the gentleman near the fireplace is painted red, reflecting the nearby fire. In any case, regardless of whether it’s a fireplace or a throne, it’s the same in both paintings.
It's not the same at all. You can't actually make out the top bit in the Elizabeth picture, but in the other you can see pictures to the side of it and Front. Also it's not the same room. The Windows are in the wrong place, plus the other picture has a fancy floor. There's a better colour version of the other picture and that shows the walls to the room are bright green and tiles more brightly coloured.
I also said that the fireplace in the other room was not lit, but she still is using a fan. And that means she is hot from some other cause. Then answer being the heat from a summer storm. With the symbolic nature that implies. If the fire were lit the man inside it would be on fire.
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
A secret society doesn't commission painters.
Well, if they can place Shakespeare’s picture on the cover of a botany book, why not situate a family portrait in France, with Shakespeare playing a large viol?
Because it's not Shakespeare playing the Viol. The picture dates to early 1580's and that guy is to old. The man to the far right is young enough to be William and also wears the same hat as the 1588 picture of Shakespeare as identified by Lesile Hotson. The guy on the botany book could be any number of men. Several faces on these paintings match it. It's only a sketch drawing of a man, it could be any number of people.
Post by Morten St. George
You got to follow the eyes. That has to be Dudley, a man in love, staring directly at Elizabeth. The deceased Queen Jane, in miniature, is looking upwards toward her son, John Florio, just to the right of Elizabeth. Marlowe, far left, is looking across to his master, Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa on the far right. Sir Thomas Cavendish, sitting to the right of his monkey, is also looking toward Pedro, his friend. Over on the left, Giordano Bruno is playing the fiddle.
Sorry PAL that doesn't match with any known information. The Queen Jane idea is too stupid to contemplate. Queen Jane was a red haired woman, contemporises reported that she had freckles all over her face. Common with red haired people.
Post by Morten St. George
To each his own fantasy!
I don't use fantasy in deciphering images or facts. I base things on known facts, details and well researched documents.

You on the other hand don't use any facts and question known documents. You haven't got a single fact to back up any of your arguments.

I have spent years researching Mary Queen of Scots and Queen Elizabeth, before even touching on Shakespeare and neither of them are like the characters that historians have portrayed them as.
400 years of time does that to people. It's likely Mutton in 400 years time you might be known by your bank statements, doctors medicals and census returns. What would that tell them about you now?
What would the foundations of your current home say about you?

Take a look at my Art of Deception chapter. To show the effect of the colour loss in pictures I have coloured up a picture of the Armada portrait to how it might have appeared to an Elizabethan person. As well as an explanation of the different pictures of Elizabeth. There's some of Shakespeare too!
http://therealchart.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/real-william-shakespeare-chapter-5.html
Morten St. George
2016-12-08 23:41:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because it's not Shakespeare playing the Viol. The picture dates to early 1580's and that guy is to old.
Since the identity of the real Shakespeare is a matter of debate, how can you possibly claim that this guy is too old? Besides, it seems none of the Valois paintings were signed and dated, so no one really knows for sure when or by whom they were painted; it may all be just a guess based on the assumption of a dance at the court of Henry III. Moreover, artists have been known to maintain the same style for a decade or two, no?
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Sorry PAL that doesn't match with any known information. The Queen Jane idea is too stupid to contemplate. Queen Jane was a red haired woman, contemporises reported that she had freckles all over her face. Common with red haired people.
Oh, please. If an artist were to try to depict freckles in a miniature, it would look like she had smallpox! Besides, I see reddish hair in the middle of her head, just above the ears. Are you color blind? Moreover, I believe women back then liked to wear wigs, so hair color in paintings is always a question of doubt. Maybe Laraine can confirm that for us. And why don’t you try comparing our miniature to the "Streatham portrait" of Lady Jane? Looks like the same gal to me.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I don't use fantasy in deciphering images or facts. I base things on known facts, details and well researched documents.
I fully agree with you on this approach. Unfortunately, like American politicians, you seem to be lacking in judgment.

By the way, I’m looking for Egyptian rabbi in our painting to complete the story of the founding of the RC. Any ideas? Maybe the guy holding a staff in his left hand? Prophets carried a staff, no? Having faked his death in 1572 (so I allege), he would be between fifty and sixty years old at the time of this painting.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Take a look at my Art of Deception chapter.
I did, and I can recommend it to others.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
http://therealchart.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/real-william-shakespeare-chapter-5.html
As an expert in the depiction of English women in Renaissance paintings, you can surely (so we hope) identify some of the gals for us. I’m particularly interested in the really cute one waving a fan in her left hand and pointing two fingers down in her right hand. Can she be the daughter of the old lady pointing just one finger down? Any ideas?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-12-09 12:28:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because it's not Shakespeare playing the Viol. The picture dates to early 1580's and that guy is to old.
Since the identity of the real Shakespeare is a matter of debate, how can you possibly claim that this guy is too old? Besides, it seems none of the Valois paintings were signed and dated, so no one really knows for sure when or by whom they were painted; it may all be just a guess based on the assumption of a dance at the court of Henry III. Moreover, artists have been known to maintain the same style for a decade or two, no?
An artist style would remain constant throughout his life, though they might vary how it was painted. But at this time there was no radical painting movements.
The picture can be dated, first by use of paint samples. The wood the canvas was made from and by clothing styles. The ruffs became more elaborate as the decades passed. These are modest ones so date to around the early 1580's.
Shakespeare of Stratford was born in 1564. So if he appears in a painting of this date he can not be old. As I said Hotson identified him in a 1588 picture by Hilliard. An historian of Hilliard said that the artist would have known just about everyone in London, since the population wasn't that great. And he paints a picture of Shakespeare, exactly after the break up of the Queen's men. Due to Christopher Marlowe telling the Queen that he had slept with Shakespeare's wife. Which is why Shakespeare leaves his wife the best bed!
The picture, which clearly features the Queen's hand an attempt by Shakespeare to get back into the good books with the Queen.
Marlowe is also painted by Hilliard. Here
Loading Image...

The thorns in this case show how troubled he was by Elizabeth (Tudor Rose).

Somebody else commissioned this to represent Marlowe.
Loading Image...

The picture colour has faded over time. The background being flames!
Most art historians put this as the flames of passion. But I would put it as the flames of hell. It rather fits in with Marlowe being a Devil's son. But not for the reasons you think.
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Sorry PAL that doesn't match with any known information. The Queen Jane idea is too stupid to contemplate. Queen Jane was a red haired woman, contemporises reported that she had freckles all over her face. Common with red haired people.
Oh, please. If an artist were to try to depict freckles in a miniature, it would look like she had smallpox! Besides, I see reddish hair in the middle of her head, just above the ears. Are you color blind? Moreover, I believe women back then liked to wear wigs, so hair color in paintings is always a question of doubt. Maybe Laraine can confirm that for us. And why don’t you try comparing our miniature to the "Streatham portrait" of Lady Jane? Looks like the same gal to me.
The colours on pictures of this period have little meaning. Since to put it mildly Elizabethan paintings would have been garish to modern eyes. Very brightly coloured. For example it's the white faced Elizabeth that people think the Queen used heaps of white lead on her face. But the paint colour of the delectate rose (carnation) colour has long gone from all of them. Blue, green, yellow all seem to have vanished from the pictures.
Nobody would put a picture of Jane Grey in a piece this late. In fact there are pictures of Elizabeth that are also showing other women. But yet they are all Elizabeth. The artists simply showing different sides of what we would call "personality". I have seen one where there are 12 Elizabeth's!!!
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I don't use fantasy in deciphering images or facts. I base things on known facts, details and well researched documents.
I fully agree with you on this approach. Unfortunately, like American politicians, you seem to be lacking in judgment.
Politicians make decisions that historians then debate. My judgement is sound. It's open to debate, a politician's is not.
Post by Morten St. George
By the way, I’m looking for Egyptian rabbi in our painting to complete the story of the founding of the RC. Any ideas? Maybe the guy holding a staff in his left hand? Prophets carried a staff, no? Having faked his death in 1572 (so I allege), he would be between fifty and sixty years old at the time of this painting.
Egyptian religious people would be of little interest to painters.
Post by Morten St. George
As an expert in the depiction of English women in Renaissance paintings, you can surely (so we hope) identify some of the gals for us. I’m particularly interested in the really cute one waving a fan in her left hand and pointing two fingers down in her right hand. Can she be the daughter of the old lady pointing just one finger down? Any ideas?
I think I mentioned in a previous post that women are more difficult to track down. Most depictions of them are tomb images. With all the imagery that implies. I recently just the other day was watching Lucy Worsley. And she says that many portraits of women where commissioned when they got pregnant. Just in case they died during child birth and the child lived. Not uncommon. To show the child it's mother!
Morten St. George
2016-12-13 03:18:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Shakespeare of Stratford was born in 1564. So if he appears in a painting of this date he can not be old.
No matter how many times we anti-Stratfordians try to explain to you Stratfordians that we use the term "Shakespeare" to refer to the true author of the Shakespearean canon (whoever that might be) and the term "Shakspere" to refer to a businessman from Stratford, it seems to never sink in. Evidently, Shakspere as Shakespeare is so deeply ingrained into the psyche of you British that you are unable comprehend how anyone can see a distinction.

So little is known about the real Shakespeare (beyond what can be inferred from his writings) that we should certainly pursue every possibility to learn more, including that painting which could reaffirm his depiction in the Herball encyclopedia. I view the painting as curious in several respects, and I also consider it significant that we find it in the Sidney family estate as opposed to most other places.

But before we go any further, some background information might prove helpful. When and how did Penshurst Place acquire that painting? When and by whom were Elizabeth and Dudley first identified as the dancing partners?

I have an idea. Since you live in England, why don’t you pay a visit to Penshurst Place and get the answer to those questions? The entrance fee is only around ten quid, so you should have it covered even on your modest income.
marco
2016-12-19 08:02:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Shakespeare of Stratford was born in 1564. So if he appears in a painting of this date he can not be old.
No matter how many times we anti-Stratfordians try to explain to you Stratfordians that we use the term "Shakespeare" to refer to the true author of the Shakespearean canon (whoever that might be) and the term "Shakspere" to refer to a businessman from Stratford, it seems to never sink in. Evidently, Shakspere as Shakespeare is so deeply ingrained into the psyche of you British that you are unable comprehend how anyone can see a distinction.
So little is known about the real Shakespeare (beyond what can be inferred from his writings) that we should certainly pursue every possibility to learn more, including that painting which could reaffirm his depiction in the Herball encyclopedia. I view the painting as curious in several respects, and I also consider it significant that we find it in the Sidney family estate as opposed to most other places.
But before we go any further, some background information might prove helpful. When and how did Penshurst Place acquire that painting? When and by whom were Elizabeth and Dudley first identified as the dancing partners?
I have an idea. Since you live in England, why don’t you pay a visit to Penshurst Place and get the answer to those questions? The entrance fee is only around ten quid, so you should have it covered even on your modest income.
.
Morten St. George
2016-12-19 19:18:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
But before we go any further, some background information might prove helpful. When and how did Penshurst Place acquire that painting? When and by whom were Elizabeth and Dudley first identified as the dancing partners?
I have an idea. Since you live in England, why don’t you pay a visit to Penshurst Place and get the answer to those questions? The entrance fee is only around ten quid, so you should have it covered even on your modest income.
Graham, I have another favor to ask of you. Since you are an expert in English heraldry (and I know absolutely nothing about it), I was wondering if you could tell us the meaning and significance of the "pole" as a heraldic device. It seems to be rare in French and English portraits but is noteworthy in portraits of members of the Herbert family.

To clarify what I am referring to, please have a look at the following portraits:

William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke

Loading Image...

William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke

Loading Image...

Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke

Loading Image...

William (iii) and Philip (iv) were the two dedicatees of Shakespeare’s First Folio. They were both quite young when Shakespeare began his writing career, so it seems likely that Shakespeare’s contact with the Herbert family began with their father Henry. I couldn’t find a portrait of Henry Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, holding a long pole (though it seems logical that he had one) but here’s a regular picture of him:

Loading Image...

Let’s now have another look at your original posting of the Penshurst Place painting:

http://www.rmg.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/slider/public/Robert_Dudley_Elizabeth_Dancing.jpg?itok=h-QkUSM1

As you can see, next to a guy playing the fiddle, there’s a guy holding a pole. Previously, I speculated that (if that be the staff of a prophet) he could be the famous cabalist alluded to in the Fama Fraternitatis and Nova aAtlantis, but Henry Herbert would be another possibility. Of course, if that is Henry, chances are much improved that we really do have a picture of Shakespeare in that painting.

So, Graham, as an expert in facial identification, please give us your opinion: Can the guy with a pole be Henry Herbert?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-12-19 20:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by Morten St. George
But before we go any further, some background information might prove helpful. When and how did Penshurst Place acquire that painting? When and by whom were Elizabeth and Dudley first identified as the dancing partners?
I have an idea. Since you live in England, why don’t you pay a visit to Penshurst Place and get the answer to those questions? The entrance fee is only around ten quid, so you should have it covered even on your modest income.
Graham, I have another favor to ask of you. Since you are an expert in English heraldry (and I know absolutely nothing about it), I was wondering if you could tell us the meaning and significance of the "pole" as a heraldic device. It seems to be rare in French and English portraits but is noteworthy in portraits of members of the Herbert family.
William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/William_Herbert_1st_Earl_of_Pembroke_1567.jpg/220px-William_Herbert_1st_Earl_of_Pembroke_1567.jpg
William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/William_Herbert,_3rd_Earl_of_Pembroke_by_Daniel_Mytens.jpg/260px-William_Herbert,_3rd_Earl_of_Pembroke_by_Daniel_Mytens.jpg
Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Anthony_van_Dyck_-_Philip_Herbert,_4th_Earl_of_Pembroke_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/250px-Anthony_van_Dyck_-_Philip_Herbert,_4th_Earl_of_Pembroke_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/2ndEarlOfPemboke.jpg/240px-2ndEarlOfPemboke.jpg
http://www.rmg.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/slider/public/Robert_Dudley_Elizabeth_Dancing.jpg?itok=h-QkUSM1
As you can see, next to a guy playing the fiddle, there’s a guy holding a pole. Previously, I speculated that (if that be the staff of a prophet) he could be the famous cabalist alluded to in the Fama Fraternitatis and Nova aAtlantis, but Henry Herbert would be another possibility. Of course, if that is Henry, chances are much improved that we really do have a picture of Shakespeare in that painting.
So, Graham, as an expert in facial identification, please give us your opinion: Can the guy with a pole be Henry Herbert?
I wouldn't say I was an expert on heraldry, but I would have said that the staff or rod is a sign of his "office" in the court. If you looked to the legs of the pictures which show them, you will see that they wear a garter. These show they are Garter Knights. Something that that is still active today. All of these things show the high status in the Royal court. I always think it's best to view the English Court as sort of a big family. Because that is what they are. They are all related to the King or Queen. These families rose or fell with the monarchs and it was important to keep well in with them. That meant holding various positions at court. One of the most important was the Groom of the Stools. But few modern people would think it important, as it was basically the man in charge of what the King shit in!

As for your last part, I can't really see the face clear enough to put a name to the man. But because he carries a Rod or Staff of office, he is certainly of the status of an Earl and the like. But there are lots to choose from!

Below is a list of Garter Knights numbers 359 and 360 should interest you.
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/garterlist.htm
Morten St. George
2016-12-20 01:56:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I wouldn't say I was an expert on heraldry, but I would have said that the staff or rod is a sign of his "office" in the court. If you looked to the legs of the pictures which show them, you will see that they wear a garter. These show they are Garter Knights. Something that that is still active today. All of these things show the high status in the Royal court. I always think it's best to view the English Court as sort of a big family. Because that is what they are.
As for your last part, I can't really see the face clear enough to put a name to the man. But because he carries a Rod or Staff of office, he is certainly of the status of an Earl and the like. But there are lots to choose from!
Below is a list of Garter Knights numbers 359 and 360 should interest you.
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/garterlist.htm
Thanks, Graham, for that informative reply. It was very helpful, and this time I am not being sarcastic!

Here are the garters to which you draw my attention:

359 (inv 1574) Henry (Stanley), 4th Earl of Derby.

He was the father of William Stanley who, by Mortenian theory, is the foremost candidate for principal writer of the Shakespearean plays. Henry was the patron of musical and theatrical troupes, so it is easy to see how William acquired interest in those fields.

Wikïpedia notes:

"Elizabeth I of England created Derby a Knight of the Garter in 1574. He was created alongside Henry Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke."

And Wikipedia adds:

"He was appointed ambassador to the court of Henry III of France in 1580."

Now, in all seriousness: Wasn't the Court of Henry III of France precisely the place where we find more paintings by that same artist?

360 (inv 1574) Henry (Herbert), 2nd Earl of Pembroke. Married Mary, sister of Sir Philip Sidney: "Sidney's sister, Pembroke's mother."

Prior to marrying Mary Sidney (herself a Shakespearean candidate), Henry Herbert married the sister of Lady Jane Grey; by Mortenian theory, that would make him the uncle of John Florio, primary architect of the Shakespearean plays. On his father’s side, Florio’s uncle would be Robert Dudley, the guy dancing with Elizabeth.

Regarding Mary Sidney, note that Penshurst Place (where we find our painting) was the estate of the Sidney family.

Here’s another garter that I find noteworthy:

391 (inv 1601) William (Stanley), 6th Earl of Derby.

I was wondering: Did the Knights of the Garter carry the canopy? I ask this because in Sonnet 125 Shakespeare writes: "Were't aught to me I bore the canopy."

In any event, do you see other garters in our painting?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-12-20 12:58:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
I was wondering: Did the Knights of the Garter carry the canopy? I ask this because in Sonnet 125 Shakespeare writes: "Were't aught to me I bore the canopy."
In any event, do you see other garters in our painting?
There are several versions of another later picture which show Elizabeth in a procession underneath a canopy. It is being carried by knights. It's not attached to the chair which is mounted to a carriage being pushed by more humble men.
The first picture is clearer than the rest, but maybe a later copy.
Loading Image...
The second picture is the original.
Loading Image...
The third image I have not seen before but has her in a red dress.
Loading Image...

Roy Strong identified most of the people in his book The Cult of Elizabeth, which you could get from a library.
The woman in the silver dress to the right of Elizabeth lead lots of people to believe it was her wedding. But this is no longer believed.

Wikipedia does add this about...
The painting known as Queen Elizabeth going in procession to Blackfriars in 1601, or simply The Procession Picture (see illustration), is now often accepted as the work of Peake. The attribution was made by Roy Strong, who called it "one of the great visual mysteries of the Elizabethan age".[29] It is an example of the convention, prevalent in the later part of her reign, of painting Elizabeth as an icon, portraying her as much younger and more triumphant than she was. As Strong puts it, "[t]his is Gloriana in her sunset glory, the mistress of the set piece, of the calculated spectacular presentation of herself to her adoring subjects".[29] George Vertue, the eighteenth-century antiquarian, called the painting "not well nor ill done".[30]

Strong reveals that the procession was connected to the marriage of Henry Somerset, Lord Herbert, and Lady Anne Russell, one of the queen’s six maids of honour, on 16 June 1600.[31] He identifies many of the individuals portrayed in the procession and shows that instead of a litter, as was previously assumed, Queen Elizabeth is sitting on a wheeled cart or chariot. Strong also suggests that the landscape and castles in the background are not intended to be realistic. In accordance with Elizabethan stylistic conventions, they are emblematic, here representing the Welsh properties of Edward Somerset, Earl of Worcester, to which his son Lord Herbert was the heir.[32] The earl may have commissioned the picture to celebrate his appointment as Master of the Queen’s Horse in 1601.[33]

However Strong is not always right on anything so some of the people he identifies might not be right.

That line of course in the sonnets I think you will find is one of Elizabeth's.
Morten St. George
2016-12-21 01:25:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The third image I have not seen before but has her in a red dress.
http://en.wahooart.com/Art.nsf/O/9CWAFJ/$File/Robert+Peake-A+Procession+Of+Elizabeth+I.JPG
Thanks, Graham, for providing us with another helpful picture.

Though the scene is packed full of Garter Knights, it seems that none of them are actually carrying the canopy. Therefore, Shakespeare, who tells us he carried the canopy, may not have been a Garter at the time.

According to Wikimedia, the guy carrying the rod (four from the left in front of the upright sword) is George Carey, Shakespeare’s dear friend, patron of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men for whom S did all his writing.

Also, according to Wikimedia, three of the four men carrying the canopy are unidentified. OK, genius, which one of them is Shakespeare? Surely, one of them has to be Shakespeare else S would be a lying when he said he bore the canopy and surely S would never lie to us. So, which one is Shakespeare? Maybe the guy in green wearing glasses?

The way I see it, the only way that S might not be in your picture is if he bore the canopy for King James and not for Elizabeth. Since the Sonnets were published in 1609, and James was crowned in 1603, that would be a distinct possibility. Please show us a picture of King James’ canopy so that we can see if S is helping to carry it. OK?

By the way, was it normal for English kings and queens to hire playwrights and other ruffians to carry their canopy?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-12-21 13:25:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Though the scene is packed full of Garter Knights, it seems that none of them are actually carrying the canopy. Therefore, Shakespeare, who tells us he carried the canopy, may not have been a Garter at the time.
They are if you look carefully, one simply has his hand on a very thin pole that sticks out. The canopy and construction was very light weight. Four people could carry it with just one hand, rather like a person can hold an umbrella. They just needed the four to support the corners.
Post by Morten St. George
According to Wikimedia, the guy carrying the rod (four from the left in front of the upright sword) is George Carey, Shakespeare’s dear friend, patron of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men for whom S did all his writing.
Also, according to Wikimedia, three of the four men carrying the canopy are unidentified. OK, genius, which one of them is Shakespeare? Surely, one of them has to be Shakespeare else S would be a lying when he said he bore the canopy and surely S would never lie to us. So, which one is Shakespeare? Maybe the guy in green wearing glasses?
None of them are Shakespeare. By 1601 He had fallen out of favour with Elizabeth. She would not have much to do with him.
Post by Morten St. George
The way I see it, the only way that S might not be in your picture is if he bore the canopy for King James and not for Elizabeth. Since the Sonnets were published in 1609, and James was crowned in 1603, that would be a distinct possibility. Please show us a picture of King James’ canopy so that we can see if S is helping to carry it. OK?
The Sonnets were private between Shakespeare and his friends. William Shakespeare would never have published. But one of his friends did. That I believe was Ben Jonson. Because he used the hyphen on his works to indicate joint writers. Shakespeare and Elizabeth. The publication of that book was the reason Shakespeare hid himself away. He wanted NO scandal to come on to Queen Elizabeth and he would have done anything to protect her reputation, even though she had been dead several years after they were published.
Post by Morten St. George
By the way, was it normal for English kings and queens to hire playwrights and other ruffians to carry their canopy?
I think you are reading the first line wrong. It's a slight error, but it doesn't take much to mix up the tense on some words. Change "Bore" to "Bare" and that line makes more sense with the rest of the verse.
In other words Shakespeare was saying if it was up to me I would bare the canopy!
Since Elizabeth replies in 126, calling William a "lovely boy" the Sonnets at this point were written before William was 21.
The "canopy" was just a sun shade, to stop the Queen going red in the Sun. Since she had blond hair, that's is what would happen to her if she was in the sun too long. And Elizabeth loved to go traveling about, though she actually thought it opened her up to ridicule. For it is she who coined the phrase "Motely to view".
Morten St. George
2016-12-22 03:52:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I think you are reading the first line wrong. It's a slight error, but it doesn't take much to mix up the tense on some words. Change "Bore" to "Bare" and that line makes more sense with the rest of the verse.
In other words Shakespeare was saying if it was up to me I would bare the canopy!
Seriously? Are you really trying to insinuate that the printer made a typo and that’s why you don’t have to explain how Shakspere of Stratford became a canopy-bearer? That’s a new one to add to the Stratfordian repertoire. Here are a few of the earlier ones:

Anti-Stratfordian Observation: The Shakespearean plays reflect considerable familiarity with royal courts and royal pastimes, but Shakspere of Stratford was a commoner.

Stratfordian Response: Shakspere never needed to see a royal court because he had a fantastic imagination.

Anti-Stratfordian Observations: The Shakespearean plays reflect considerable knowledge of English law but there is no evidence that Shakspere ever attended school even for a single day.

Stratfordian Response: Shakspere could have worded as a legal clerk during his lost years.

Anti-Stratfordian Observation: The Shakespearean plays reflect considerable familiarity with Italy and Italian culture but Shakspere never left England.

Stratfordian Response: Shakspere could have been the friend, or even the roommate, of Giovanni Florio.

Anti-Stratfordian Observation: The Shakespearean plays reflect considerable knowledge of seamanship but there is no evidence that Shakspere ever set out to sea.

Stratfordian Response: Shakspere could have met a sailor in his local pub.

The list of observation and response goes on and on. Ironically, the Stratfordians constantly claim that the anti-Stratfordians are crackpots. I think the Stratfordians need to take a look in the mirror.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-12-22 13:07:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I think you are reading the first line wrong. It's a slight error, but it doesn't take much to mix up the tense on some words. Change "Bore" to "Bare" and that line makes more sense with the rest of the verse.
In other words Shakespeare was saying if it was up to me I would bare the canopy!
The 1623 works are full of them. It wouldn't be the first. Even modern books have typing errors. The worst case was a bible, where it said "Thou SHALL commit adultery".
Post by Morten St. George
Anti-Stratfordian Observation: The Shakespearean plays reflect considerable familiarity with royal courts and royal pastimes, but Shakspere of Stratford was a commoner.
Stratfordian Response: Shakspere never needed to see a royal court because he had a fantastic imagination.
That is made up nonsense, because they do not understand Queen Elizabeth. Shakespeare of Stratford was in the court, he was brought to it by Elizabeth when he was young and he was very useful to William Cecil. Because he told him of all the Catholic people in the Stratford area that were out to get the Queen. Including his own relations! That's the type of guy William was. He was THAT besotted with the Queen.
Post by Morten St. George
Anti-Stratfordian Observations: The Shakespearean plays reflect considerable knowledge of English law but there is no evidence that Shakspere ever attended school even for a single day.
Stratfordian Response: Shakspere could have worded as a legal clerk during his lost years.
The Stratfordians have encouraged the idea that a single person was responsible for the works of Shakespeare. That was never the case. They were done in a co-operative style, with all the company of people contributing, including among others Christopher Marlowe. And all done between 1580 and 1589. About 600 plays in total which only a few have seen the light of day. All under the watchful eye of Shakespeare.
Post by Morten St. George
Anti-Stratfordian Observation: The Shakespearean plays reflect considerable familiarity with Italy and Italian culture but Shakspere never left England.
Stratfordian Response: Shakspere could have been the friend, or even the roommate, of Giovanni Florio.
That's not true either. There was in the company Italian people, they contributed the cultural elements along with other information that Shakespeare got from the highly intelligent Queen Elizabeth.
Post by Morten St. George
Anti-Stratfordian Observation: The Shakespearean plays reflect considerable knowledge of seamanship but there is no evidence that Shakspere ever set out to sea.
Stratfordian Response: Shakspere could have met a sailor in his local pub.
Rubbish again, the single writer myth. No candidate could possibly fill the shoes of the writer of the works. They would have to be a jack of all trades. That's partially why the Anti lobby can't agree on a single candidate. As not one fits the criteria perfectly.
Post by Morten St. George
The list of observation and response goes on and on. Ironically, the Stratfordians constantly claim that the anti-Stratfordians are crackpots. I think the Stratfordians need to take a look in the mirror.
There is no such thing as Stratfordains. Each person will have his own ideas of how William Shakespeare did them or how the plays were done.

Anti-Stratfordians just see the flaws in the Stratfordian arguments. However there ideas are just as flawed as those wishing that William wrote the plays alone.
The trouble with the anti lobby is that they have little understanding of how REAL people behave. Since it was knocked out of them when they attended the higher education establishments they went too. And likewise for the Stratfordian camp. Only they don't like to question the flaws in the system, not till the thing stares them in the face.

It always reminds me of the King's Suit of clothes rhyme.
People are told that if you can't see the fine clothes then you are stupid.
So the word of mouth or education system, tells everyone there's something there, when of course there isn't.
Till someone like me comes around at tells them there isn't anything there!
Morten St. George
2016-12-22 21:45:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
The Stratfordians have encouraged the idea that a single person was responsible for the works of Shakespeare. That was never the case. They were done in a co-operative style, with all the company of people contributing,
No candidate could possibly fill the shoes of the writer of the works. They would have to be a jack of all trades. That's partially why the Anti lobby can't agree on a single candidate. As not one fits the criteria perfectly.
The Stratfordian notion of collaboration can be explained as follows: Collaborator A writes Act I, and Collaborator B writes Act II. With view to differing writing styles, collaborations of this type can be easily detected.

But there is another type of collaboration of which the Stratfordians seem to be wholly unaware. It goes like this: Collaborator A creates the characters and prepares an outline of the plot after consulting Collaborator B on legal matters and Collaborator C on seamanship; Collaborator D then writes the play following the outline prepared by Collaborator A. Since there is only one writer, the Stratfordians are unable to detect any collaboration.

The Shakespearean plays were a secret endeavor of the highest echelon of English royalty. Even King James likely contributed something.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-12-23 01:07:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
The Stratfordian notion of collaboration can be explained as follows: Collaborator A writes Act I, and Collaborator B writes Act II. With view to differing writing styles, collaborations of this type can be easily detected.
But there is another type of collaboration of which the Stratfordians seem to be wholly unaware. It goes like this: Collaborator A creates the characters and prepares an outline of the plot after consulting Collaborator B on legal matters and Collaborator C on seamanship; Collaborator D then writes the play following the outline prepared by Collaborator A. Since there is only one writer, the Stratfordians are unable to detect any collaboration.
The Shakespearean plays were a secret endeavor of the highest echelon of English royalty. Even King James likely contributed something.
There is NO collaboration in Shakespeare plays unless the text tells you that there was.
What I am talking about is a co-operative. This was in the form of various writers and the complete set of actors featured in the Works of 1623, plus other's that were never credited, such as the Bassano family. There was NO royalty involved in the writing of the plays at all.
King James contributed NOTHING, since the entire lot about 600 plays were all done before 1589. It was a relentless schedule.
It started with an idea, which came from Shakespeare. Most of them were based around the life story of Queen Elizabeth. The actual working out of the play was done by the "company" live on stage. The actors were typecast, if they could contribute a line themselves, then it went in. For example Christopher Marlowe, who later on played bad guys wrote his own lines in the Shakespeare plays. In fact many Shakespeare sayings are actually his own words. This is why you think his works are like Shakespeare, or you and some people think he wrote Shakespeare. Well he did, but only the bits he was acting.
Shakespeare never auditioned the actors for the parts. They were written around the people in the company. Everything in a Shakespeare play was done so it worked on the stage. If it went wrong even, but it was funny, it was left in. Outtakes we would call them today. An example can be found in one of the history plays. One actor trips up. So another actor ad libs the line, making reference to it. Then they all do.
Still there are plenty of clues to tell the plays were written down by the actors when the play was being produced. In Hamlet there's pieces that work because one of the actors was still talking as the others chip in comments. Rather like two parents arguing with a kid, while the kid is repeating what he is saying over and over again.
I think the company tried to keep the co-operative a secret, playing it down to one man or a couple of people. Probably to get the plays past the Master of The Revels who approved the plays. But the style was extremely useful since, as people have spotted, you can get it more realistic than one or two people writing alone. The combined effort of say 20 heads over just one!
A single writer would struggle to keep up the demand, as plays only ran a week in the houses, the population being not big enough to keep repeating the performance like they do today.
Likewise writers block would have been around then, so a single person couldn't cope. It's likely that William Shakespeare having a very fast hand at writing wrote many of the lines down. But he certainly did not come up with the vast majority on his own.
I would say William could write about 60 to 70% faster than the average person. Largely because I write 60 to 70% slower than the average person. As reincarnation loves playing these tricks on people. Reversing abilities.

The way of doing plays like this died out with Shakespeare. The other form the single writer plays replaced it. It was around in Shakespeare times, but they were mostly plays about the repairs to London Bridge, really boring stuff, that Shakespeare takes the piss out of in Midsummer Nights Dream. With an actor playing a "wall".

There are of course elements of the Shakespeare style or co-operative in most dramas and films. Comedy shows such as the Big Bang use a team of writers, which don't really get any credit. Actors come up with there own lines in films, not sticking to the script. They don't get credit for them. In fact most are only known about when they do a "making of", or people listen to the commentary on the DVD's of the films.
marco
2016-12-25 03:45:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Morten St. George
The Stratfordian notion of collaboration can be explained as follows: Collaborator A writes Act I, and Collaborator B writes Act II. With view to differing writing styles, collaborations of this type can be easily detected.
But there is another type of collaboration of which the Stratfordians seem to be wholly unaware. It goes like this: Collaborator A creates the characters and prepares an outline of the plot after consulting Collaborator B on legal matters and Collaborator C on seamanship; Collaborator D then writes the play following the outline prepared by Collaborator A. Since there is only one writer, the Stratfordians are unable to detect any collaboration.
The Shakespearean plays were a secret endeavor of the highest echelon of English royalty. Even King James likely contributed something.
There is NO collaboration in Shakespeare plays unless the text tells you that there was.
What I am talking about is a co-operative. This was in the form of various writers and the complete set of actors featured in the Works of 1623, plus other's that were never credited, such as the Bassano family. There was NO royalty involved in the writing of the plays at all.
King James contributed NOTHING, since the entire lot about 600 plays were all done before 1589. It was a relentless schedule.
It started with an idea, which came from Shakespeare. Most of them were based around the life story of Queen Elizabeth. The actual working out of the play was done by the "company" live on stage. The actors were typecast, if they could contribute a line themselves, then it went in. For example Christopher Marlowe, who later on played bad guys wrote his own lines in the Shakespeare plays. In fact many Shakespeare sayings are actually his own words. This is why you think his works are like Shakespeare, or you and some people think he wrote Shakespeare. Well he did, but only the bits he was acting.
Shakespeare never auditioned the actors for the parts. They were written around the people in the company. Everything in a Shakespeare play was done so it worked on the stage. If it went wrong even, but it was funny, it was left in. Outtakes we would call them today. An example can be found in one of the history plays. One actor trips up. So another actor ad libs the line, making reference to it. Then they all do.
Still there are plenty of clues to tell the plays were written down by the actors when the play was being produced. In Hamlet there's pieces that work because one of the actors was still talking as the others chip in comments. Rather like two parents arguing with a kid, while the kid is repeating what he is saying over and over again.
I think the company tried to keep the co-operative a secret, playing it down to one man or a couple of people. Probably to get the plays past the Master of The Revels who approved the plays. But the style was extremely useful since, as people have spotted, you can get it more realistic than one or two people writing alone. The combined effort of say 20 heads over just one!
A single writer would struggle to keep up the demand, as plays only ran a week in the houses, the population being not big enough to keep repeating the performance like they do today.
Likewise writers block would have been around then, so a single person couldn't cope. It's likely that William Shakespeare having a very fast hand at writing wrote many of the lines down. But he certainly did not come up with the vast majority on his own.
I would say William could write about 60 to 70% faster than the average person. Largely because I write 60 to 70% slower than the average person. As reincarnation loves playing these tricks on people. Reversing abilities.
The way of doing plays like this died out with Shakespeare. The other form the single writer plays replaced it. It was around in Shakespeare times, but they were mostly plays about the repairs to London Bridge, really boring stuff, that Shakespeare takes the piss out of in Midsummer Nights Dream. With an actor playing a "wall".
There are of course elements of the Shakespeare style or co-operative in most dramas and films. Comedy shows such as the Big Bang use a team of writers, which don't really get any credit. Actors come up with there own lines in films, not sticking to the script. They don't get credit for them. In fact most are only known about when they do a "making of", or people listen to the commentary on the DVD's of the films.
.
A***@germanymail.com
2016-12-31 21:22:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Morten St. George
The Stratfordian notion of collaboration can be explained as follows: Collaborator A writes Act I, and Collaborator B writes Act II. With view to differing writing styles, collaborations of this type can be easily detected.
But there is another type of collaboration of which the Stratfordians seem to be wholly unaware. It goes like this: Collaborator A creates the characters and prepares an outline of the plot after consulting Collaborator B on legal matters and Collaborator C on seamanship; Collaborator D then writes the play following the outline prepared by Collaborator A. Since there is only one writer, the Stratfordians are unable to detect any collaboration.
The Shakespearean plays were a secret endeavor of the highest echelon of English royalty. Even King James likely contributed something.
There is NO collaboration in Shakespeare plays unless the text tells you that there was.
What I am talking about is a co-operative. This was in the form of various writers and the complete set of actors featured in the Works of 1623, plus other's that were never credited, such as the Bassano family. There was NO royalty involved in the writing of the plays at all.
King James contributed NOTHING, since the entire lot about 600 plays were all done before 1589. It was a relentless schedule.
It started with an idea, which came from Shakespeare. Most of them were based around the life story of Queen Elizabeth. The actual working out of the play was done by the "company" live on stage. The actors were typecast, if they could contribute a line themselves, then it went in. For example Christopher Marlowe, who later on played bad guys wrote his own lines in the Shakespeare plays. In fact many Shakespeare sayings are actually his own words. This is why you think his works are like Shakespeare, or you and some people think he wrote Shakespeare. Well he did, but only the bits he was acting.
Shakespeare never auditioned the actors for the parts. They were written around the people in the company. Everything in a Shakespeare play was done so it worked on the stage. If it went wrong even, but it was funny, it was left in. Outtakes we would call them today. An example can be found in one of the history plays. One actor trips up. So another actor ad libs the line, making reference to it. Then they all do.
Still there are plenty of clues to tell the plays were written down by the actors when the play was being produced. In Hamlet there's pieces that work because one of the actors was still talking as the others chip in comments. Rather like two parents arguing with a kid, while the kid is repeating what he is saying over and over again.
I think the company tried to keep the co-operative a secret, playing it down to one man or a couple of people. Probably to get the plays past the Master of The Revels who approved the plays. But the style was extremely useful since, as people have spotted, you can get it more realistic than one or two people writing alone. The combined effort of say 20 heads over just one!
A single writer would struggle to keep up the demand, as plays only ran a week in the houses, the population being not big enough to keep repeating the performance like they do today.
Likewise writers block would have been around then, so a single person couldn't cope. It's likely that William Shakespeare having a very fast hand at writing wrote many of the lines down. But he certainly did not come up with the vast majority on his own.
I would say William could write about 60 to 70% faster than the average person. Largely because I write 60 to 70% slower than the average person. As reincarnation loves playing these tricks on people. Reversing abilities.
The way of doing plays like this died out with Shakespeare. The other form the single writer plays replaced it. It was around in Shakespeare times, but they were mostly plays about the repairs to London Bridge, really boring stuff, that Shakespeare takes the piss out of in Midsummer Nights Dream. With an actor playing a "wall".
There are of course elements of the Shakespeare style or co-operative in most dramas and films. Comedy shows such as the Big Bang use a team of writers, which don't really get any credit. Actors come up with there own lines in films, not sticking to the script. They don't get credit for them. In fact most are only known about when they do a "making of", or people listen to the commentary on the DVD's of the films.
.
Art N
Morten St. George
2017-01-01 00:27:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
The Shakespearean plays were a secret endeavor of the highest echelon of English royalty. Even King James likely contributed something.
I wasn’t kidding when I suggested the involvement of King James. Indeed, granted that James was the patron of the King’s Men, the playing company for which Shakespeare wrote his plays, it is unimaginable that any authorship conspiracy could succeed without the full consent and support of James.

It is my belief that James was offered the throne of England in exchange for his agreeing to join the Rosicrucian brotherhood. Candidates for other members of the brotherhood would be people who gained prominence in his court (or those who were granted easy access to it) and surely that would include the Shakespearean authors.

The Rosicrucian manifesto states: "as much as possibly could be, their burial place should be kept secret."

Wikipedia notes: "James was buried in Westminster Abbey. The position of the tomb was lost for many years. The lead coffin was found in the Henry VII vault in the 19th century, during an excavation of many of the vaults beneath the floor."

The point is that an effort was made to conceal his burial place.

On this basis, an argument can also be made for Edward de Vere. Wikipedia: "Elizabeth's will requested that she be buried with her husband at Hackney. Although this document and the parish registers confirm De Vere's burial there, his cousin Percival Golding later claimed that his body was interred at Westminster."

So, it seems no one knows where Oxford was buried. This, of course, does not mean that Oxford was Shakespeare, but it does suggest that he supported the conspiracy and may have made literary contributions.

Likewise, the real Shakespearean authors are almost certainly people for whom no grave can be found. Ambiguities like "He was buried in this churchyard" can be ignored: the actual grave must be missing.

Earlier this year I committed to spend the rest of Shakspere’s anniversary promoting my anti-Stratfordian theories in this forum, and that term is about to come to an end. Let me take this opportunity to extend my thanks to those of you who posed challenging questions and my best wishes for the new year to all of you.
A***@germanymail.com
2017-01-01 19:12:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by Morten St. George
The Shakespearean plays were a secret endeavor of the highest echelon of English royalty. Even King James likely contributed something.
I wasn’t kidding when I suggested the involvement of King James. Indeed, granted that James was the patron of the King’s Men, the playing company for which Shakespeare wrote his plays, it is unimaginable that any authorship conspiracy could succeed without the full consent and support of James.
It is my belief that James was offered the throne of England in exchange for his agreeing to join the Rosicrucian brotherhood. Candidates for other members of the brotherhood would be people who gained prominence in his court (or those who were granted easy access to it) and surely that would include the Shakespearean authors.
The Rosicrucian manifesto states: "as much as possibly could be, their burial place should be kept secret."
Wikipedia notes: "James was buried in Westminster Abbey. The position of the tomb was lost for many years. The lead coffin was found in the Henry VII vault in the 19th century, during an excavation of many of the vaults beneath the floor."
The point is that an effort was made to conceal his burial place.
On this basis, an argument can also be made for Edward de Vere. Wikipedia: "Elizabeth's will requested that she be buried with her husband at Hackney. Although this document and the parish registers confirm De Vere's burial there, his cousin Percival Golding later claimed that his body was interred at Westminster."
So, it seems no one knows where Oxford was buried. This, of course, does not mean that Oxford was Shakespeare, but it does suggest that he supported the conspiracy and may have made literary contributions.
Likewise, the real Shakespearean authors are almost certainly people for whom no grave can be found. Ambiguities like "He was buried in this churchyard" can be ignored: the actual grave must be missing.
Earlier this year I committed to spend the rest of Shakspere’s anniversary promoting my anti-Stratfordian theories in this forum, and that term is about to come to an end. Let me take this opportunity to extend my thanks to those of you who posed challenging questions and my best wishes for the new year to all of you.
Art N
marco
2017-01-04 15:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by Morten St. George
The Shakespearean plays were a secret endeavor of the highest echelon of English royalty. Even King James likely contributed something.
I wasn’t kidding when I suggested the involvement of King James. Indeed, granted that James was the patron of the King’s Men, the playing company for which Shakespeare wrote his plays, it is unimaginable that any authorship conspiracy could succeed without the full consent and support of James.
It is my belief that James was offered the throne of England in exchange for his agreeing to join the Rosicrucian brotherhood. Candidates for other members of the brotherhood would be people who gained prominence in his court (or those who were granted easy access to it) and surely that would include the Shakespearean authors.
The Rosicrucian manifesto states: "as much as possibly could be, their burial place should be kept secret."
Wikipedia notes: "James was buried in Westminster Abbey. The position of the tomb was lost for many years. The lead coffin was found in the Henry VII vault in the 19th century, during an excavation of many of the vaults beneath the floor."
The point is that an effort was made to conceal his burial place.
On this basis, an argument can also be made for Edward de Vere. Wikipedia: "Elizabeth's will requested that she be buried with her husband at Hackney. Although this document and the parish registers confirm De Vere's burial there, his cousin Percival Golding later claimed that his body was interred at Westminster."
So, it seems no one knows where Oxford was buried. This, of course, does not mean that Oxford was Shakespeare, but it does suggest that he supported the conspiracy and may have made literary contributions.
Likewise, the real Shakespearean authors are almost certainly people for whom no grave can be found. Ambiguities like "He was buried in this churchyard" can be ignored: the actual grave must be missing.
Earlier this year I committed to spend the rest of Shakspere’s anniversary promoting my anti-Stratfordian theories in this forum, and that term is about to come to an end. Let me take this opportunity to extend my thanks to those of you who posed challenging questions and my best wishes for the new year to all of you.
Art N
.
marco
2017-04-03 15:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Morten St. George
Post by Morten St. George
The Shakespearean plays were a secret endeavor of the highest echelon of English royalty. Even King James likely contributed something.
I wasn’t kidding when I suggested the involvement of King James. Indeed, granted that James was the patron of the King’s Men, the playing company for which Shakespeare wrote his plays, it is unimaginable that any authorship conspiracy could succeed without the full consent and support of James.
It is my belief that James was offered the throne of England in exchange for his agreeing to join the Rosicrucian brotherhood. Candidates for other members of the brotherhood would be people who gained prominence in his court (or those who were granted easy access to it) and surely that would include the Shakespearean authors.
The Rosicrucian manifesto states: "as much as possibly could be, their burial place should be kept secret."
Wikipedia notes: "James was buried in Westminster Abbey. The position of the tomb was lost for many years. The lead coffin was found in the Henry VII vault in the 19th century, during an excavation of many of the vaults beneath the floor."
The point is that an effort was made to conceal his burial place.
On this basis, an argument can also be made for Edward de Vere. Wikipedia: "Elizabeth's will requested that she be buried with her husband at Hackney. Although this document and the parish registers confirm De Vere's burial there, his cousin Percival Golding later claimed that his body was interred at Westminster."
So, it seems no one knows where Oxford was buried. This, of course, does not mean that Oxford was Shakespeare, but it does suggest that he supported the conspiracy and may have made literary contributions.
Likewise, the real Shakespearean authors are almost certainly people for whom no grave can be found. Ambiguities like "He was buried in this churchyard" can be ignored: the actual grave must be missing.
Earlier this year I committed to spend the rest of Shakspere’s anniversary promoting my anti-Stratfordian theories in this forum, and that term is about to come to an end. Let me take this opportunity to extend my thanks to those of you who posed challenging questions and my best wishes for the new year to all of you.
Art N
.
confirmed

g***@btinternet.com
2016-11-26 00:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
There is a story that Queen Elizabeth liked the character of Falstaff that much she asked Shakespeare to write a play of him being in love.

There is also the case of her saying that she was Richard III. After the Essex uprising. A play that was put on 30 years after it was written according to the court records.
Loading...