Jim Warren - Foundations of the Oxfordian Claim

[@benc8834]

Thankyou James Warren for sharing these lesser discussed lines of inquiry and the huge job of re-publishing Percy Allen's work. Incredible!

[@Short-Cipher]

So impressed with the seemingly infatigable Warren these past several years. Bravo!👏

[@truthlove1114]

So glad this work is being done. Posting to help the analytics

[@peckerwood6078]

Great Oxenford will yet surprise & amaze as the layers are beginning to be peeled away to reveal the Beauty and horror beneath the facade!

[@alainaaugust1932]

Keep your site always subscribed precisely so I’ll know when this Annual Conference occurs. Your work is beyond cool, fascinating, historic. If any Oxfordian sees this: If a young Oxford impregnated Elizabeth, why didn’t she recognize the child? What happened to the child? Kings before Elizabeth had “legitimized” their bastard sons. Why didn’t she? If all the courtiers knew, what were the key drivers of their silence? “Their heads” is not an answer. Just why would they have been executed? What drove Oxford’s own silence? Did the lovers, Oxford and Elizabeth, come to hate each other? Might this put another sly meaning to his “Fair Youth, Fair Youth, have a son, have a son?” Is he lamenting his own? Your answers this time next year would be glorious. Blessings and success to you all.

[@stevenhershkowitz2265]

If Elizabeth recognized an heir then she would have lost all her political power, and maybe her life after that. Elizabeth used her "virginity" to keep enemies and allies at bay while they sought England's allegiance through marriage; acknowledging an heir would have eliminated that strategy. "Queen Elizabeth" would have been reduced to "Mrs. King" if she bore a child, and that was not an acceptable position for her or for William Cecil. A hidden heir might prove useful eventually, but in this case it did not prove necessary. Elizabeth chose to keep her reputation and die heirless rather than admit that she was no virgin, and so avoid suffering the consequences visited upon impure women of the time. She goes down in history as The Virgin Queen, not The Strumpet Liar.

[@carolynredinger439]

I'm sorry, did you just ask why the woman who evaded marriage and made herself iconic as The Virgin Queen didn't acknowledge her illegitimate child??????

[@hasltisl]

Excellent!

[@edgarsnake2857]

So, Percy Allen was batshit crazy, Glad that got mentioned. The back and forth on Shakespeare's authorship is high debate. I've been convinced twice by both sides in the last 24 hours alone. Deep down, I'm an Oxfordian.

[@NewMusic.FreshIdeas]

Bravo! And thank you.

[@ginawiggles918]

Where is the complete set of James Warren's books on Percy Allen work available for purchase?

[@josephhewes3923]

Someone needs to replicate and update Allen's research. Sounds like it can reinforce what's going on today.

[@joyplanta2402]

There is a preponderance of that de Vere wrote the plays, etc. There is hardly any evidence that the man from Stratford had anything to do with them; there is every evidence that he was practically illiterate. *of evidence

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

I don't understand the Southampton parentage question still gets so much press. I find it completely implausible Elizabeth mothered a child. She was too intelligent and had too much at stake to risk such a thing, especially if the child wouldn't be recognized as an heir. We loose people going off on " conspiracy" tangents and not sticking to the the authorship evidence trail. I have the upmost respect for Alexander Waugh's intelligence as well but when he starts his numerology, mystic triangle stuff, I close down as do, I'm afraid, many persuadible people.

[@DrWrapperband]

Was Will Shaxsper from Stratford-upon-Avon lame? No. Was Shake-speare the Bard lame, yes. Was Edward DeVere lame, yes. Case closed.

[@thoutube9522]

I hope you're not a criminal lawyer. This 'lame' suggestion is based on two highly ambiguous quotes, in both of which (LOOK AT THE CONTEXT) the word is probably used metaphorically. IT STILL IS!!!! 'That is so lame', we chime, when someone makes feeble excuse. As Simon Schama puts it, the so-called 'authorship question; is a failure of imagination - ABOUT imagination.

[@williamrubinstein3442]

Oxford lived from 1550 until 1604. Shakespeare wrote from c 1590 until 1613, when Oxford had been dead for nine years. Claiming that he wrote Shakespeare's works is therefore absurd. The Tempest was based on the Strachey Letter of 1610, which it was impossible for Oxford to have read. There is also Hand D, an actual sample of Shakespeare's handwriting as a playwright, whoever he was. I have never seen a comparison of Hand D with Oxford's handwriting, presumably because they were totally different. I urge you to check out the overwhelmingly strong case for Sir Henry Neville (c 1563- 1615).

[@vetstadiumastroturf5756]

Claiming that you know the exact dates that Shakespeare was active is absurd. There is not one known date for any Shakespeare play or poem - the accepted dates are based on a timeline that was created by Stratfordians specifically to exclude Oxford and should be dismissed out of hand. The Stratfordian claim - created to exclude Oxford - that the Tempest is related to Strachey's letter has been thoroughly debunked. Hand D is just Stratfordian wishful thinking - it can neither be proven nor debunked; perhaps it was the guy from Stratford; perhaps it was composed by Oxford who dictated to a secretary; perhaps it has nothing to do with Shakespeare at all.

[@fabiengerard8142]

I’ve been following only from time to time the controversy for several years, so I don’t remember too precisely every single theory, although seriously doubting the Stradfordian narrative, after having visited the official ‘’Shakespeare House’’ four decades ago… Can anyone refresh me about which scholar worked more convincingly on the hypothesis De Vere mostly wrote the plays, except he had to remain anonymous as their author and kept them unpublished for valid reasons as long as he was alive? Then, in the aftermath of our man’s passing, the corpus of those initial drafts got somehow collected, performed, duly edited, and finally published in the form of the First Folio, etc., by some former friend(s) and admirer(s) of his, who chose to use the quite convenient Bard’s pseudonym that made him immortal? The name that comes first to my mind is A.W. but I’m unsure his views went that far or if another Oxfordian completed the full frame.

[@stephenclune1232]

Thomas Looney was the first to propose the Oxfordian theory in his book Shakespeare Identified published in 1920. At the end of that very book - in a seperate appendix, Looney addresses The Tempest issue at length. And so the very proponent of the Oxford theory was very much aware of this issue - and resolved it - at the very start of all of this controversy, What do you say of Looney’s arguments concerning The Tempest?

[@thomridgeway1438]

This argument falls to pieces when you accept that Shake-speare could indeed be a covert group of playwrights under the control of 17th Earl of Oxford Edward Devere, paid for by The Queen. It's even written down in her own accounts. Therefore all initial plays could have been written by Devere and a small scriptorium of poets and revised and released long after his death; to serve whatever propaganda purpose The Queen's (and later King James) Court required. It is quite possible that the likes of Bacon and Marlowe took part in this secret Rosicrucian pursuit. In other words 'William Shakespeare' was a brand, just as Disney continues long after the death of Walt Disney.

[@richardharber8683]

Suggest you Google Alexander waugh