Listen to Looney's audio books, 'Shakespeare Identify' who had confirmed Edward de vere is the true bard. He also stated that 3rd earl of southampton paid William Shaksper 1000 pound in 1609 to be the front man of the sonnets as nobody would associate the

Published in 1634, the 'Bridal Song' within the play Two Noble Kinsmen (by John Fletcher, whether principally or uniquely) might be construed as lending credence to this account. The second stanza commences, "Primrose, first-born child of Ver"; ostensibly a botanical reference to Spring, but we know that 'Ver' was often deployed as a version of 'Vere' and other floral references within the same verse may be 'unpicked' as representing aspects of a concealed birth.

According to J T Looney, 3rd Earl of Southampton gave William Shaksper one thousand pound in 1609 before publishing the sonnets. apparently to use him as a front man.

Interpretation: Queen Elisabeth pregnant. Loses the child in an abortion. The lover forced into silence.

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear and grace my fears relieved.' Or, in other words, pain is pain's medicine.

Are there any writers among the descendants of Henry de Vere? Just wondering if supreme wordsmithery is heritable.

Volume is fine for me. The whole presentation was great. Thank you!

Hello David, Just a weird, mad comment here! I was watching the brilliant British (Tradgedic Comedy) 'Hancock's Half Hour' Episode - 'The Television Set'; Over the fireplace is a Lady with a long white veil...next to her is a creature with VERY SPINDERLY LEGS..Almost Animal like! What is this Prop picture a COPY FROM/OF?

Excellent

Fabulous

Fascinating

Fantastic

Hi David, I am a subscriber. I usually view your videos thru my Roku streaming device. For the past few weeks, I have been unable to see any videos listed on your channel page thru my Roku. All appears normal on my computer, tablet & phone. However, I almost always view using Roku; & my tv. My efforts to contact youtube with Roku issues always fall on deaf ears. Probably because there is literally no way to contact them for the streaming app. As the channel owner, could you please draw this to their attention? All efforts to get to your homepage are successful, but once there, not one single video is listed. I do not know if it is a result of a youtube update, sun spots or a hack. I'd very much like to see the situation resolved. Thank you!

Unlikely to be Edward De Vere. The writing analysis from works published under his name doesn’t fit. Furthermore, De Vere wasn’t exactly shy about coming forward with works published under his name which are mediocre in comparison. If De Vere had written this he would have jumped up and down to get attention. Furthermore, there was no claim that was other than Shakespeare until well after Shakespeare’s death, despite this being one of Shakespeare’s most popular works spring his life time. So the evidence doesn’t support De Vere. But just a great conspiracy yarn, good for a Sunday curled up with a hot drink and a nicely put together video:).

I think it is Arbella Stuart. She did marry. She definitely had time to get pregnant. She is alleged to have had a daughter but perhaps the daughter died young. Arbella Stuart was painted more than once. Arbella was born in 1575 and was well connected and would have been well known to Queen Elizabeth I. Queen Elizabeth encouraged others to dress as well as Queen Elizabeth I. Clearly she was wearing a beautiful dress in the painting. Arbella's father died when she was young, She married in secret to William Seymour but this marriage was not approved by the crown. She and her husband tried to leave England. They were not able to escape. She and her husband were imprisoned in the Tower of London. She died in the tower of London in 1615 - this is after Queen Elizabeth I died. So clearly she was still a threat to James I who ascended the throne after Elizabeth I died. I think the painting represents the fact that she was once pregnant during her marriage to William Seymour. It may be that the painting was created before she lost favour and was a tragic figure (a) due to her secret marriage and (b) due to her losing the one child she gave birth to. Subsequently perhaps the picture is a lesson to anyone who goes against the crown - marrying in secret to Seymour. Failing to escape England. Being imprisoned in the tower along with her husband, And finally NOT being forgiven by the King who succeeded Queen Elizabeth I.

Never mind the comments about the volume. I have a control on my headphones or just such an occurrence. Interesting developments in Lavenham recently.

Hello David, I am a grad student doing research on the era. I have come across some alternative ideas based regarding the title and symbolism of the "rainbow". Is there some way I could reach you in a private forum? Thank you.

Some 40 odd years ago my husband and I regularly walked our dog along the path through the pillars that marked the palace. As a history buff myself I often thought of the people who had passed by there. Thank you for your history of the palace.

I clicked on this video to learn about the correct pronunciation for the name Wriothesley and ive concluded that there isn't a single correct way because i havent heard your pronunciation before.

Great video but that chart showing only 20 women tested when billions have gone through it was...lame. In my opinion, I see no problems. Edward didn't have the control he was destined by God to have so he blamed his wife and father in law. He could control others if, in say, a play, for example. Of course he said the child wasn't his in front of the woman he really really wanted. I'm sure everyone laughed. Of course he had sex with his wife when he was drunk at it was his child. Of course, he was pissed at his father in law for not giving a little money but taking it his whole life. Lesson 1: testosterone is a hell of a drug Lesson 2: people are idiots.

David, I come back to these videos over and over again. Are you still making videos? This is one of my favorite channels on KZbin! Godspeed, I hope this finds you well.

She’s an ancestor of mine. Thank you for this. ❤

At 31:33, “When dressing a wound, pain is pain’s medicine.” Could this relate to how some dressings which might clean a wound - even soap and water - sting, hurt, but do or can lead to healing? In labor, sometimes bearing down can help in the birthing process, thus reducing time in labor. And the bearing down can, for some or in some cases bring some relief? Sort of meeting and going with the pain? Maybe a labor and delivery nurse, midwife, Dr could advise?

At time mark 43:02, could there be a thin blue line going back and up between the trees, suggesting a stream, maybe even a waterfall, but connecting to the pond in the back ground, and be the origin of the stream you’re already identified to the right of the stag? Any symbology to a pond, stream, waterfall? The flow, stream of life over generations? Could overpaintaings be attempts to suggest a different woman than in the original, perhaps to enhance its value or, if the truth is scandalous, disguise it? Do inferences about motivation help in seeing patterns in such “editing”? Not just ways to improve or clean up areas that had become obscure?

All the historical proof was that the Stratford man was not a gentleman. That you have assumed. I'm afraid Jonson was too clever for you as was Droueshout. You've spent all your breath to explain dozens of details that were DONE ON PURPOSE not in error.

There is a Hilliard miniature shown on the Wikipedia site for Katherine Knyvet that doesn't look like her, but looks much closer to the portraits shown here of Elizabeth. No idea of governance or dating, but eyebrows don't match Knyvet's portrait at all.

Need to watch both parts again, a lot to assimilate. Off the cuff, the geometric/Greek letter content seems pretty far fetched. Do you need to go that far to establish the likelihood of DeVere’s parentage? Any reasonable, informed, unbiased person has to grant that he is Shakespeare. I’d like to learn about stuff such as who was where when, integrating historical facts like how his trips to the continent might have played into their relationship…his marriage…his outrage at his own loss of good reputation. How would that have been such a blow if he himself was carrying on with the queen… or was that simply explained by the double standard for men and women? So intriguing. Please make more more more videos!

If Anne conceived in October 1574, why was Oxford not informed before he left for France on Feb 1, 1575 nearly 4 months later. This discredits the July 2nd date and gives credence to the late Sep 1575 date. James Warren gives good arguments in his 2023 Oxfordian article.

Your research is impeccable! Nicely done.

The Rainbow Portrait has always been my favourite painting of any Queen. Were all the eyes on her robe coloured brown? Perhaps resembling the person who commissioned it? Presumably John Dee had drawn up her Astrological chart, and listed which gem stones, colours and plants etc would be auspicious for her...which might explain some aspects of her costumes? You've made the picture seem even more fascinating than it was before.Thank you for listing the many symbols in it.

Who objected to the DNA tests? (I'd think it great fun to dig up my relatives and do that sort of thing to them)...perhaps whoever's in charge now is ok with the idea? It's a lovely painting, I shall try to listen to the sonnets while visiting it. Another talk mentioned Spanish and French ambassadors writing home that the Queen was looking pregnant in January 1561 just before the birth of Francis Bacon ? And he's registered as being born in Elizabeths residence and the house next door? Perhaps we can do a DNA test on him? With Bacon's interest in science, surely it's the type of experiment he'd love to participate in?

I like the double A representing the Gods you mentioned, also Amor? Ars Amatoria by Ovid ? And perhaps snails in this context might be appropriate for being male, female, hermaphroditic or parthenogenitic ?...The computer thinks the word ought to be parthenogenetic...and it doesn't like my spelling of Ars Amatoria either, so sorry if they're wrong, but you hopefully get what I mean.

Sir Henry Neville (the Younger) is the true author of the Shake-Speare canon, and a step-cousin of Sir Francis Bacon, Verulem. Bacon was deeply involved in the production of the First Folio (1623). Two facts about Oxford: he was born too late and died too early. Neville was distantly related to the Arden family and he used Shaxper as a “straw man”.

Interesting additional information. Robert Prechter wrote a good piece about how little the "Penelope Rich" thesis holds true in a thorough reading of Willoghby His Avisa. The evidence does not seem to be there for the De Vere -Wriothesley-Rich foster parent/parent/parent story that a certain reading of the poem seems to support (robertprechter.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Prechter-Avisa.pdf). A better case seems to exist, in my opinion, that the poem is actually meant to honor the chastity of Queen Elizabeth and not condemn Penelope Rich. I must say your generalizations about "the woke brigade" combine with your occasional leaps of logic (as when you argue the paternity of De Vere's first child) to reveal a strange limit to what you want to consider fairly. Here, your objection to this inquiry into the life of a "Black Knight" is more rightly stated as addressing the interest of a particular person, not a "brigade." According to this video, you have no direct evidence about what motivated this person's inquiry, just a vague (and mocking) overview. It's your channel to run as you choose, of course, but I wonder if this kind of sloppy political generalization helps your videos?

I've been watching a few of your videos today and have subscribed. Wonderful stuff and very thought provoking. Thank you and a happy 2024 to all.

It is not rare to get pregnant very soon after the baby is born. ANd because these women did not breastfeed themselves even more so.

It was the 16Th century Mr. Potato Head representing something not real. The engraver deliberately got every single element necessary to make a faithful reproduction wrong adding clues in the process. I can't believe much was left to chance on that frontispiece.

The FF frontispiece was a clear , definite and historically-logically enforced posthumous "faked fabrication" of a false poet genius: William Shakspere (Stratford). But Edward de Vere ,17th Earl of Oxford was equally or even more false!. The only existing "TRUE" poet & dramatist GENIUS of 'his' time was Christopher MARLOWE. (at least for people with common sense), kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGi5loRthKqFZ5Y

The FF frontispiece was a clear , definite and historically-logically enforced posthumous "faked fabrication" of a false poet genius: William Shakspere (Stratford). But Edward de Vere ,17th Earl of Oxford was equally or even more false!. The only existing "TRUE" poet & dramatist GENIUS of 'his' time was Christopher MARLOWE. (at least for people with common sense), kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGi5loRthKqFZ5Y

Martin Droeshout cannot have worked from 'life', as Shakespeare, whoever he was, was already dead. Might perspective errors introduced into the engraving have been due, in some measure at least, to the angular displacement of the portrait which the engraver must have copied? In order to achieve the same right-facing image when printed, Droeshout would have employed a mirror and worked in reverse, so to speak. Yet he cannot have done so 'head on', as the original canvas would have been directly in his line of sight. Angling the mirror for an unobstructed view would necessarily have introduced additional perspective cues.

I would encourage evaluation of the Droeshout engraving alongside the 'Venice Portrait', which bears much greater comparison than Chandos version (blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/face-william-shakespeare/). Ironically (perhaps significantly), it too appears to be a 'collage', comprising head and torso elements originally realised on different canvases. FWIW, there is a genuine possibility that the Chandos image is that of actor Joseph Taylor. When you think about it, who among the inhabitants of Hollywood nowadays get photographed/painted as a result of a successful film production or other, the actor(s), or the screen writer(s)?

The hairline. The de Vere daughters had a widow’s peak, Southampton kind of does too.

Ever more questions than answers....QE1 and Edward de Vere are said (by Hank Whittemore, for example) to have encouraged the young Henry Wriothesely to enter into a marriage contract with de Vere's daughter Elizabeth, which he declined to do. At first blush, this action on the part of the Queen and her former consort could be construed as an incitement to incest, should HW and Elizabeth de Vere have shared a father. They would have been closer than first cousins. Common sense alone would have argued against such a marriage proposal as that between a half-brother and sister, something the devout Oxford would surely not have sanctioned, much less encouraged. Whilst said situation would seem to undermine the hypothesis concerning Wriothseley's regal parentage, the apparent dilemma is resolved once one factor's in the likelihood that Edward de Vere was not, in fact, the father of his daughter Elizabeth, whom he only acknowledged following a five-year separation and after reaching an agreement with his father-in-law, Lord Burghley. The bottom line, as they say, is that Edward de Vere was perfectly at liberty to agitate for the union between a son in whom he was genetically invested, and his own daughter, who was, in reality, adopted.

What if the engraving simply isn't perfectly anatomically accurate?

David I need to know plainly if you think Elizabeth had secret children and exactly who you think they are and their connections to the Rothschilds/freemasonry? PLEASE! THank you -L

Promo_SM

I'm with you David regarding the dedications of the narrative poems and the deep love the author feels towards the dedicatee. All I do, all I've done and all I will ever do (paraphrasing), "decidedly yours" ... it seems like Storge to me (love a parent feels for a child), but in these dedications and also in the Sonnets, the author seems to place the dedicatee / fair youth (Southampton) above himself with a sort of royal reverence. It's interesting to contrast the selfless language from dedications with the earlier letters from Oxford to W. Cecil, where de Vere claims his real property, and indeed his own time, is his to exploit for his own fulfillment and not for Cecil's (or his family's) happiness. Beyond these dedications, is it possible the narrative poems of Venus and Adonis, and Lucrece, are a pair of deeply real, autobiographical pieces to tell the story of the author's 25th and 26th years to his two oldest "children" and explain how each was conceived, and how they are not biological siblings? Why publicize something so deeply personal in this way? Royal succession was the "A" topic of the moment in the 1590s and it must have been planned for (we're talking about W. Cecil after all) and just as the historical plays were used to galvanize and prepare an island nation for war with Spain, these best selling narrative poems could have been the purposeful preparing of the national psyche for what was to come. William Cecil would accept the airing of his family's dirty laundry in The Rape of Lucrece (his daughter Anne's rape and his granddaughter Elizabeth's parentage by the predator, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester) if it would mean his great grandchildren would be Tudors and rule England. Venus and Adonis explained to Henry Wriothesley that he was the 'natural issue' of a lusty Queen and a young de Vere. Both poems combined to provide a backstory to "the deal" struck between Cecil, Queen Elizabeth and de Vere for royal succession through the betrothal and marriage of Southampton to Elizabeth de Vere, and as a propaganda piece (along with the first 17 sonnets) to apply pressure to and convince Southampton to do it. Just a thought.

Or perhaps we should take Oxford at his word(s). You mentioned that De Vere claimed in court and in the presence of Queen Elizabeth (who may have been his lover at the time) that if Anne were pregnant, it could not be by him. You also cited an earlier letter to Elizabeth from her cousin, Mary Queen of Scotts, who chided Elizabeth regarding reports that de Vere had not consummated his marriage to Anne Cecil so as not to spoil a potential love affair with Queen Elizabeth herself. The second narrative poem by Shake-speare, The Rape of Lucrece, potentially provides an autobiographical explanation for de Vere's behavior (in retrospect and in apology from the author) to his wife: Following Lucrece's rape by Tarquin and her subsequent suicide, the victim's husband, Colletine, blames himself for certain actions he took (disclosure of a great secret) which he blames for leading to the assault on his wife. This twist in Shake-speare's narrative differs from Ovid's Fasti, and I cry every time I read it. To me, Colletine's horror and self recrimination seems real and autobiographical. The letter from Oxford to Cecil echos (paraphrasing): "why couldn't we have handled all this in private?" David, I like your analytical questions. Here are a few more: During the Royal Progress that Fall, was there a predator in the Elizabethan Court who may have overheard Oxford disclose this "great secret" to the Queen and found it too delicious an opportunity to ignore? Perhaps this individual already had an 'axe to grind' with William Cecil and may have also been jealous of the Queen's affections shown toward Oxford during the previous year, and when this opportunity was presented to him, he played his own 'bed trick' to cuckold two rivals at once... Remember, Anne lobbied Sir Thomas Radclyffe for larger accommodations; she lamented her husband's lack of attention to her and hoped more sumptuous rooms would help lure him to her bed. Could the Earle of Leicester have learned of Anne's request, and desire to unite with her husband (perhaps for the very first time) and pretended to be him for the evening - at least for as long as it took to gain entry to the bedchamber? I wonder if Leicester already knew where Oxford was sleeping (and with whom) and was confident he wouldn't be interfered with in his revenge taking... "Why was Anne keen to abort the baby?" (especially when Anne and her family had been maneuvering to 'normalize' this marriage for nearly three years at this point?) If the baby were a product of rape, and Oxford had never slept with his wife, the shame and humiliation (and desire to conceal a pregnancy) is the most likely answer.

Your research is exhausting... your erudition... entertaining. I've been binging on them all... but had to jump ahead to your last two here to find out "who dunnit"... lol. I totally agree and just don't understand the blindness on the question of authorship. Keep up the good fight.... it appears that truth is the underdog in our current age. Thank you for the herculean effort and clarity of presenting your findings.

I believe this woman to be the queen she had a point to prove which was very important to her to be unmarried