Discussion:
The 13th
(too old to reply)
Arthur Neuendorffer
2018-01-29 14:21:21 UTC
Permalink
John de Vere [13th] Earl of Oxford was an uncle of Edward de Vere's
grandfather: John de Vere [15th] Earl of Oxford.

John de Vere [13th Earl] is the only Earl of Oxford to get mentioned in _Shakespeare_
[i.e., in Henry VI Part 3 & Richard III] even though earlier Earl's really should have appeared:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is no mention of Richard de Vere [11th] Earl of Oxford in _Henry V_
nor of Robert de Vere [9th] Earl of Oxford in _Richard II_
nor of John de Vere [7th] Earl of Oxford in _Edward III_ (now thought to be by Shakespeare)
nor of Robert de Vere [3rd] Earl of Oxford in _King John_
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oxfordians consider this snub to be editing that censored Edward de Vere's original.

However, since John de Vere [13th Earl] helped Richmond become Henry VII (and thus
start the House of Tudor) Elizabeth was OK with him being recognized in Shakespeare

(along with Sir William Stanley: the ancestor of William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby:
Edward de Vere's son-in-law and probably coauthor of the [W.S]hakespeare canon).

An interesting absence in Shakespeare's History plays (from King John to Henry VIII)
is the lack of a Henry VII play (; Francis Bacon had to write a biography of Henry VII
in 1622 just before the First Folio came out in 1623 to compensate for this absence).

Oxfordians explain this absent History play by the shabby way John de Vere [13th]
Earl of Oxford was eventually treated by Henry VII with a fine of £10,000 [$5 million today!]
for having too many retainers [a sort of private army in full-time service to the lord
rather than the king]. Note that King Lear (who had 3 daughters like Edward de Vere)
was also brought to ruin when two of his daughters conspired to strip him of his 100 retainers.

Shakespeare was obsessed with the ways of aristocracy and discovering who
wrote Shakespeare may shed light upon the meanings & motives of such works
(; at least, more so than by visiting the Stratford "birthplace").
-----------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
2018-01-29 23:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
John de Vere [13th] Earl of Oxford was an uncle of Edward de Vere's
grandfather: John de Vere [15th] Earl of Oxford.
John de Vere [13th Earl] is the only Earl of Oxford to get mentioned in >_Shakespeare_
[i.e., in Henry VI Part 3 & Richard III] even though earlier Earl's [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art?
Huh? Why should other earls have appeared, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
There is no mention of Richard de Vere [11th] Earl of Oxford in _Henry V_
nor of Robert de Vere [9th] Earl of Oxford in _Richard II_
nor of John de Vere [7th] Earl of Oxford in _Edward III_ (now thought
to be by Shakespeare)
nor of Robert de Vere [3rd] Earl of Oxford in _King John_
That's a pretty strong indication that the author was not particularly interested in Oxford's ancestors, even the more consequential ones, and hence is VERy unlikely to have been Edward de Vere, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Oxfordians consider this snub to be editing that censored Edward de Vere's original.
Oxfordians invent all manner of utterly ludicrous nonsense in a vain attempt to make their delusion appear somewhat tenable, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
However, since John de Vere [13th Earl] helped Richmond become Henry VII (and thus
start the House of Tudor) Elizabeth was OK with him being recognized in Shakespeare
Edward de Vere's son-in-law and probably coauthor of the [W.S]hakespeare canon).
There is no more evidence of William Stanley's involvement in the Shakespeare canon than there is of Edward de Vere's, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
An interesting absence in Shakespeare's History plays (from King John to Henry VIII)
is the lack of a Henry VII play
Huh?! What are you gibbering about, Art?! There are *plenty* of English Kings between John and Henry VIII about whom Shakespeare did not write history plays! For example, there is no history play about Henry III, although he reigned for oVER half a century! MoreoVER, his reign was a VERy eventful one. Nor is there a history play devoted to Edward I ("Longshanks"), despite the ample dramatic possibilities afforded by personages like William Wallace. The same can be said of Edward II, despite the dramatic possibilities afforded by personalities like Robert the Bruce, Piers Gaveston, and Roger Mortimer. (The Piers Gaveston scandal in particular ought to have appealed to Oxford.)
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
(; Francis Bacon had to write a biography
of Henry VII
in 1622 just before the First Folio came out in 1623 to compensate for this absence).
No, Art. Bacon did not *have* to write anything to compensate for the absence of any play in the First Folio, because Bacon had nothing whateVER to do with the Shakespeare canon, except in the delusions of crackpot cryptographers.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Oxfordians explain this absent History play by the shabby way John de Vere [13th]
Earl of Oxford was eventually treated by Henry VII with a fine of £10,000
[$5 million today!]
for having too many retainers [a sort of private army in full-time service to the lord
rather than the king]. Note that King Lear (who had 3 daughters like Edward de Vere)
Oxford's daughters were not like Lear's daughters, Art -- although Elizabeth, at least, had some reason to be, as Oxford abandoned her and her mother to pursue his debauchery with Venetian prostitutes and choirboys on the continent.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
was also brought to ruin when two of his daughters conspired to strip him
of his 100 retainers.
Oxford was *not* brought to ruin by any machinations of his daughters as Lear was, Art. Rather, Oxford was reduced to near penury (and to begging the Crown for charity) because he was a profligate wastrel who squandered a rich patrimony.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Shakespeare was obsessed with the ways of aristocracy and discovering who
wrote Shakespeare may shed light upon the meanings & motives of such works
(; at least, more so than by visiting the Stratford "birthplace").
You, of all people, *ought* to visit the birthplace, Art, if only to try to sneak into the Shakespeare Authorship CoVERup Conspiracy Conclaves when they're held there -- see Jon Ronson's _Them: adventures with extremists_, particularly the chapter on Jim Tucker's attempt to crash the Bilderberg gathering (although our security is pretty good).

In fact, Ronson has already profiled some of your fellow nutcases like Alex Jones; maybe he could accompany you next, Art, as you visit Stratford to spy out the SACCC, and profile you in his next book!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Loading...