John Weever knew... (Part 2)

[@chris.asi_romeo]

The amount of research you did is outstanding 👏👏👏

[@tedwong6605]

What wondrous unpicking of a tangled weave! Did you figure all this out yourself, Mr. Waugh?

[@russellmartocci323]

I think Mr Waugh is brilliant and these vids are utterly convincing. I would be interested in his interpretations viewed in this light: that Henry Wriothsely is the child of Queen Elizabeth and Edward de Vere. His red hair is her red hair. That de Vere is not obsessed with Wriothsely; Wriothsely is his son. That Wriothsely's portrait shows off how much he resembles Queen Elizabeth. That some terms may be directed at her rosy-cheeks that Henry inherited. Does Romea refer to Elizabeth in some way? Does Weever not know about the connection to Elizabeth and that throws his speculations off, so he paints in an imagined romantic aspect to de Vere's entreaty of Wriothsely that is actually concerned about a grandchild and heir?

[@chris.asi_romeo]

Edward De Vere is so convincing but i do think as well as Francis Bacon.

[@ronroffel1462]

Epigram 6 from the second week which preceeds epigram 7 (the middle epigram on the right-hand side) also belongs to the group (0:50). When you add 6 + 7 you get 13. When you add epigram 8 the sum is 21, which leads readers to epigram 21 on the bottom left. So it would appear that sums can lead readers to the next epigram in the series. Weever was truly weaving poems in his book. If you take the word Faire from line 6 in epigram 22 as a pun on Vere, you get the following: "Vere, fire-hot Venus charming him to love her" which could mean Weever is addressing Vere and saying that "Fire-hot Venus" was charming Southampton to love Penelope Rich. Just a thought.

[@Christian11-11]

Wooop! First viewer! feeling very privilaged! I love you're work on this Alexander! Hard to follow at times but so it is with the nature of this subject matter.

[@onefeather2]

Loved it, great talk.

[@tomditto3972]

Where Shake-speare doth his dramas make, Waugh does frames of these gentles shake. How you do dat? What a wiggle! Super cute.

[@the17thearlofoxford38]

This scandal does not seem sufficient to cause the obliteration of Oxford's identity. Perhaps if we replace the identity of Penelope Rich with someone else who might be synonymous with Fortune.

[@wayneferris9022]

Yes, the Queen herself!

[@AgathaVelvet]

The Rose Queen

[@bastianconrad2550]

All you say seems comprehensable: (but not the conclusion) e.g. You formulate literally [small comments in bracket]: „….What I think seems to be going on is : the poets of the age , obviously Marlowe, the TRUE Shakespeare, or Michael Drayton, or Samuel Daniel [ pseudonyms of the same !s.Links!] etc. they were choosing true historical narratives or mythological classical narratives and setting them to poetry in order to highlight certain moral issues, certain bad behaviours, certain things going on in court „ „ So, when Shakespeare(Marlowe) choose to set the poem of „Lucrece“ he unquestionably did it , because he was commenting upon his own scandal, just as he was in Venus & Adonis, but that does not mean we should be absolutely literal-minded about this, and say therefore:Tarquin is Henry Wriothesly (Rosalee) and Lucrece is Penelope Rich. You formulate: „The scandal of Tarquin and Lucrece is serving to underline certain aspects of the scandal [superficially] of Penelope Rich and Henry Rosalee and thats the way we must see it,…but having said that, I am now going to back track a tiny step and point out that Shakespeare certainly does leave little clues that he is adressing the present day scandal. [of his own I.e. the „true“ Shakespeare/alias Marlowe!] The rape of Lucrece is described as a rich jewel , so rich a thing….just compare (link below!). my own interpretation of the scandal Venus and Adonis kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZqan3mhncd3oK8 Drayton kzbin.info/www/bejne/a2ivfHx8hrmefNE Shakespeare Authorship/Marlowe kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGi5loRthKqFZ5Y

[@rooruffneck]

Was HW really engaged to de Vere's daughter? I thought he was being pushed very strongly to marry her.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

The £5000 fine for breaking off the arrangement with Eliz. Vere implies 'breach of promise' so yes, he was engaged.

[@rooruffneck]

@@alexanderwaugh7036 ah, that makes sense. Thank you!

[@wigbomb]

Or...the £5000 fine was Master of the Wards Burghley's punishment levied against Southampton for not breaking, but for refusing to enter into, the engagement as ordered. Which is the only way I've seen the circumstances described.