Bonner Cutting - The Portrait That Time Forgot

[@christaberit]

Absolutely brilliant as usual. There’s a reason why I keep coming back to this theory and community over and over. It’s fascinating, exciting, and a hell of a lot of fun.

[@johnwarner3968]

A most wonderful and insightful investigative talk concerning the all too many coincidences of the Shakespeare Authorship Question which to my mind is now without doubt, without question. I was sold with the most important discoveries initiated by Thomas Looney’s infamous book “Shakespeare Identified”, and many articles in “Shakepeare Revealed” and Charlton Ogburn’s works “The Mysterious William Shakespeare”, “ The Man who was Shakespeare” along with Mark Twain’s classic “Is Shakespeare Really Dead?” to the marvelous “Malice Afterthought”, “Most Greatly Lived” and the 10 volume collection of articles by Paul Altrocchi. If that isn’t the clincher we have authoritative support of the “Oxfordian”Volumes and “Shakespeare by Another Name” by Mark Anderson. These great videos alone are more than enough circumstantial evidence of Edward de Vere as the Truer than True real author of the works known as Shakespeare. Please keep these amazing videos coming as further proof beyond a doubt!

[@pamelasexsmith8363]

Would also add that Ben Johnson certainly knew. His rather pointed remark about a child resembling his father would have certainly referred to the plays, poems and Sonnets resembling the work and life of their real author, Edward De Vere

[@enheduannapax7988]

Wow for a minute I thought you went off the deep end…then you showed the eyes. Brilliant. I think you have a very strong case here. Two tiny quibbles: 1. I would have liked to see a close-up of the face of the Countess in Van Dyke’s family portrait at Wilton House as compared to the small portrait. 2. The “bald spot” is IMO actually a part in her hair. Her hair is pulled back in a knot while the hair around her face, sides and neck is free flowing. You are a treasure and I’m always thrilled to see the work you all come up with. Staunch Oxfordian here for sure.

[@enheduannapax7988]

P.S. I wonder if the small portrait of Susan DeVere was created precisely for the purpose of providing a clever basis for the Folio engraving?

[@Aureantes]

@@enheduannapax7988 - That might (help) account, actually, for the disproportionate smallness of the impossible doublet.....if the layout of this portrait were being approximately followed as reference.

[@AlannahRyane]

Soon as I saw Bonner has another presentation I jumped on it I love how she thinks. That was a Mic Drop ending for sure!! I'm surprised she didn't mention why they used her face but then that would have spoiled the ending. Awesome Bonner!!

[@sheilakethley5351]

I popped in over to EBay and bought the Wilton House book. Back to the video!

[@peterzoeftig2513]

Anne of Denmark, the wife of James I of England, exhibits very similar nose, mouth and eyes proportion and shape, that also fit these two images of the First Folio "Shakespeare" and the Earl of Pembroke's wife, Anne Clifford.

[@Annie1964ful]

I loved this presentation. The familial resemblance between the eyes in this portrait and that of Edward de Vere are striking. If you flip the portrait of Edward de Vere you will find the same lip (That Bonner Cutting didn't like ) and the upper lip and moustache are very similar ! A combination of two portraits perhaps.

[@duncanmckeown1292]

Susan Vere was Cordelia...The daughter that really did love her father! Brilliant lecture.

[@jwrigley100]

I agree the face looks very much like the Droeshout portrait but both this picture and the picture from Dulwich portrait Gallery look much later than 1623 - and later than1629 when Susan Vere died. Both the hairstyle and the neckline of the dress look 1630s at earliest. The hairstyle is absolutely typical of the 1640s and in portraits from then you see lots of examples of the 'bald spot' because that's where the hair is parted and some of it comes forward in ringlets and the rest is pulled back. I would love to think this was the origina of the Droeshout portrait but I just don't think this can be a portrait from the early 1620s. I'd love to be wrong but I don't think there are any other portraits of English ladies from the early 1620s which look like this.

[@charlibeau]

I love Ms Cutters presentations, thank you!

[@tedwong6605]

Thank you for the interesting talk. I watched Ms.Chiljan's The First Folio Fraud video recently. At 39 minute she put up an image of the engraving of the 1st Earl of Montgomery by Simon van de Passe done around 1620. This portrait has a lot of likeness to the First Folio portrait. I wonder if Droeshout used both Susan Vere and Philip Herbert's portraits.

[@sonofculloden2]

Agreed. I think also it was the Earl of Montgomery’s portrait.

[@vikki4now]

So DeVere considered Shakesp another of his offspring. The portrait created a family likeness using his own daughters features.

[@sonofculloden2]

Excellent thought

[@colinallan1962]

Whilst I agree that the small portrait matches the lady in the Van Dyke painting I disagree that it is a discovery that the lady is deceased in the painting. This has always been known since it was painted. She has her hands folded as if in death- a depiction not seen in any other of Van Dyke’s paintings. The children are hers. Ann Clifford had no children. They are placed so that they are looking towards their mother.

[@isusmankh7114]

It’s a portrait of Elizabeth 1st, I found and have a picture from the internet of her as a young lady. Unfortunately I cannot prove the provenance. Loved the presentation.

[@joanberkwitz2662]

Remarkable and completely believable, thank you.

[@UtubeAW]

Wow! I am amazed

[@Northcountry1926]

Wonderful 🎉🎉🎉

[@samisaadi407]

Keen successful detective efforts.

[@fernly2]

The Herbert family was well rewarded included in modern times to Diane’s regret.

[@fabiengerard8142]

A fascinating inquiry! It all makes sense + sounds pretty much convincing in terms of art history.

[@martinlivesley1069]

The portrait may have originally looked a lot more like Susan ..and then been overpainted later to hide the connection

[@SaralinaLove]

These features on NOT a match. The eye distance nor the pupil distance. Nor the features. I'm a painter; I see this all day and night. She is stretching this, sadly. Anyone who looks closely, these red arrows and the square line etc are just not matching her dream. These are NOT identical at all. Great speaker but just enthusiastic about an untruth.

[@floatingholmes]

As an artist myself, I agree with your observation. I am good at likenesses and know how important a tiny difference can be (I am not a professional, as I take it you are). Are you saying the differences here prove the engraving could not have been based on the lady's portrait? They do not MATCH, but then the presenter does not really claim they do. She suggests they are within tolerance for one to be imitating the other, and that standard is not as high.

[@Short-Cipher]

Brava Bonner! 👏

[@Meine.Postma]

yeah.. no. Too far fetched. For instance his nose is also wider and her nose end is totally different. Show me x-rays to prove it, otherwise you can repaint it to your liking but it proves nothing