Pictures that reveal the TRUE Father of Shakespeare's Son!

[@davidlightman6801]

The amount of evidence you have uncovered is simply staggering. I look forward to you debating Sir Jonathan again. (pun very much intended)

[@dafydd56]

Thankyou again, Mr Waugh. Always an event when you post .

[@samuellloyd2126]

You can really feel your passion and dedication in every upload you produce! Well done Alexander...

[@SouIatman]

I too love what you are producing. I feel tremendously privileged to be given this window which opens on to your passion for revealing this remarkable, and history shattering truth. I am in awe at your ability to piece this puzzle together, and deeply grateful for your willingness share publicly these efforts to complete the jigsaw. Although today you are arguably viewed as a polemical figure, I feel strongly that history will place your name at the fore of those who revealed the truth about our magnificent spear-shaker. (Though I doubt this has anything to do with your motivation for revealing this remarkable truth) Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[@thoutube9522]

slurp slurp.

[@peterbobbe]

Very interesting post, Mr. Waugh. Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to this debate.

[@truthlove1114]

Love all of your videos. Please keep sharing your knowledge!

[@martincarden]

Dear Alexander - another excellent and really fascinating presentation - I've always found it very interesting for your argument that painted portraits of Henry 18th Earl mostly have him with DARK eyes (maybe brown?), which if Penelope Rich was his mum he might likely well have. Too bad we don't have portraits (that I know of) of Elizabeth Trentham. Southampton and Edward de Vere both have lighter coloured eyes and only Robert Vaughn's depiction has Henry de Vere with the light eyes of his father (be that Edward or Southampton). The Vaughn portrait looks ENTIRELY like Southampton including eye colour and also has what looks like a trumpet on the left (announcement perhaps?) and a spear holding the flag on the left.

[@alainaaugust1932]

2024, For Alex. So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, so long lives this and this gives life to you, gracious Alex.

[@milzner641]

Another triumph, Mr. Waugh. Thank you.

[@voltracy]

I tried to find the place in todays Netherlands/Belgium: I found „Ter Veere“ near Middelburgh. Apparently a very old town with a history of riches the proof of which is the big church (groote kerk) in the centre. Could that be the de Vere place?

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Yes that’s it!

[@ronroffel1462]

I paused the video after 22:17 to count the points below the collars on the portraits and discovered that both of them have 18 visible points, further identifying Shouthampton with de Vere. Despite the fact that the points are different sizes relative to the collars, they add to the same sum. My count could be off, but I added them up three times and came up with the same number. You can see the collars better from 28:25 to 28:54 to verify (pun intended) the count.

[@karenhewett3214]

Thank you so much. I find your presentations so fascinating and illuminating. I’m no scholar but I’m hooked and appreciated the tremendous amount of study and brilliance that is so obvious. It has also given me an interest in Shakespeare’s work.

[@marcusdeakin6060]

Alexander - fascinating as ever... lockdown has had some very pleasant benefits! As far as the 'stick' top centre is concerned, there is a mirror to the right, so perhaps it is one piece, from front left, moving up piercing the background above the crown and then returning down on the rear side to the right - imagine the handle of a handbag. Not a clue what it might mean, but with an artistic mind, rather than an academic, it looked like there was some symmetry in the whole, rather than just a left to right 'stick'.

[@nell6913]

I think you are right - it appears to be a cord or thread and that the coat-of-arms is 'hanging by a thread' in much the way a Christmas ornament hang on a twig.

[@nell6913]

And of course as mentioned in your other videos, the buttons are on the wrong side here as well and the the left shoulder of the coat is wrong (i.e. turn coat). I am also intrigued by the two little square cutouts in the scrollwork. There is another difference, the Southampton motto is bolted to the scrollwork, the other is not.

[@rickames846]

above the coat of arms looks like a strap that loops over the filigree and comes back down on the other side, as if the coat of arms hangs from the frame.

[@ericloscheider7433]

Rick Ames agree

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Thank you Rick. I am sure you are right. A friend has just sent me an email with an illustration from Neubecker's heraldry depicting a soldier carrying an armorial shield by just such a strap which is captioned 'holding his shield by the strap as if it belonged to another' !

[@rickames846]

@@alexanderwaugh7036 lol that is just too perfect! Thanks for your dogged research and these regular uploads.

[@TheBlondeSunset]

In the Henry de Vere engraving (Generosissmi), the coat of arms at the top of the oval looks like it’s hanging by cordage or fabric? The cord is definitely attached to the coat of arms-to the (our) left, it comes down past the bottom of the coronet to the shield. Up and over the swirling vine or wave, and coming down on the right, the coronet obscures where that end of the cord attaches. My question-is hanging a coat of arms on someone weird? As in…it doesn’t belong to that person, but it is conferred or used like an ornament (indicating no true right)?

[@jtta8282]

Please make a detailed video on hemming and condell and as to wether they knew who real Shakespeare was.

[@tempest957]

Superb Research as usual by a leading research Academic!

[@martincarden]

Dear Alexander - would be interesting to know your view on this other engraving of 'Henry de Vere' by John Payne (so says British Museum) in which he looks more Southampton-like than any of his painted portraits, or in his depiction in the mounted 'two Henries' engraving : www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1853-0611-247

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Well, well, I have never seen that! Thank you very much for drawing it to my attention. I don't know what to make of it except that the picture is clearly not of him. I shall be pondering this for days. What an interesting find!

[@martincarden]

@@alexanderwaugh7036 I am sure we would all like to hear your informed views on [1] what the latin inscriptions mean (drat that I never had a classical education) on the standards in the side panels [2] the spear (and possible 'S' significance in the top panel, [3] the facial features of the right hand panel standard bearer, [4] the what looks like laurel wreaths above the drum in the bottom panel and [5] other lettering on the engraving.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

@@martincarden I'm on to it!

[@martincarden]

@@alexanderwaugh7036 I found the engraving through a Google image search to find the two Henries picture www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1875-0508-1696 about which their researcher(s) say(s) the image was reproduced with different heads on from an earlier image, as you say in your presentation. I also read this (head exchange) was done once more but cannot recall where I read this info, only yesterday, on the internet! Interestingly, Thomas Jenner is associated with both the engravings we are discussing ('Thomas Jenner knew ...'? - a cheeky request please?) Another Google search reveals on the latin in the 2nd engraving .... invia virtuti nulla est via = No way is impassable to virtue (Ovid) jamesgray2.me/2013/04/12/the-fourth-crusade-invia-virtuti-nulla-est-via-ovid-no-way-is-impassable-to-virtue/ and fata viam invenient = the Fates will find a way : (if you persevere) fortune will favor you (Virgil) www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Fata%20viam%20invenient Both mottoes, especially the latter might be suitable for those subscribing to the Oxfordian hypothesis of Shakespearian authorship

[@arthurneuendorffer4914]

@@martincarden -------------------------------------------------------- *INVIA VIRTUTI NULL ES VIA* (Arthur Golding) Ovid, Met. XIV.113 *No way to vertue is restreynd.* ........................................... SIBYLLA CUMAEA's advice to Aeneas www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0074%3Abook%3D14%3Acard%3D101 Aenaeas having past this Ile, and on his ryght hand left The towne of Naples, and the tumb of Mysen on his left, Toogither with the fenny grounds: at Cumye landed, and Went unto longlyvde Sybills house, with whom he went in hand That he to see his fathers ghoste myght go by Averne deepe. Shee long uppon the earth in stownd her eyes did fixed keepe, And at the length as soone as that the spryght of prophesye Was entred her, shee raysing them did thus ageine reply: O most renowmed wyght, of whom the godlynesse by fyre And valeantnesse is tryde by swoord, great things thou doost requyre. But feare not, Trojane: for thou shalt bee lord of thy desyre. To see the reverend image of thy deerebeeloved syre, Among the fayre Elysian feeldes where godly folke abyde, And all the lowest kingdoomes of the world I will thee guyde. *No way to vertue is restreynd.* This spoken, shee did showe A golden bowgh that in the wood of Proserpine did growe, And willed him to pull it from the tree. He did obey: And sawe the powre of dreadfull hell, and where his graundsyres lay And eeke the aged Ghost of stowt Anchises. Furthermore He lernd the customes of the land arryvd at late before, And what adventures should by warre betyde him in that place. --------------------------------------------------------

[@pbredder]

Alexander, masterful research; a picture is emerging. But, I am not sure we can definitely conclude that Henry de Vere had no de Vere blood.

[@nadercarun]

Amazing work, as usual. Do you (or anyone on this thread) know of any resources that speak directly on how De Vere died? The book "Shakespeare by Another Name" posits that he probably committed suicide as there wasn't any mention of a funeral for him????? Did De Vere finally choose "not to be"? I feel like this point is HUGE, I just wish there was more elaboration on it.

[@stevenhershkowitz2265]

Paul Streitz (Oxford Son of Queen Elizabeth) and/or Charles Beauclerk (Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom) (I can't remember which or both) argued that Oxford did not die in 1604 at all, but removed to the Isle of Man where his daughter Elizabeth was adminstrator (and eventually the first woman head of state of that island). The general theory has him as the preparer of the King James Bible, which despite the official story of being produced by groups of men, reads like it was produced by one man who sounds suspiciously like Shakespeare.

[@choosecarefully408]

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Now _that sounds_ like an interesting lead. We're not lucky enough that someone is researching it, are we?

[@stevenhershkowitz2265]

@@choosecarefully408 the books I mentioned are available Paul Streitz "Oxford Son of Queen Elizabeth" and/or Charles Beauclerk "Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom" Check out John Anthony's KZbin channel as well kzbin.info/door/xWpJNxTcvuxd6JcPTD6fuw

[@choosecarefully408]

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Excéllent. Merci!

[@stevenhershkowitz2265]

@@choosecarefully408 You are welcome. If you get a chance please check out my first Shakespeare Authorship video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m5iqpnmwlLOaY9U

[@advancedfaces]

Does Edward DeVere's lithograph portrait exist?

[@agricolaregs]

I love your stuff.

[@johnanthony8653]

This message is in both French and Latin. The letters in the crown above the crest are: OX OX. but they are also written: OM ON. Read from left to right, then right to left: In French: MON NOM, or MY NAME. In Latin, the words are: MOX NOX, which means SOON NIGHT, or PRESENTLY OBSCURED. So there are two OX OX's, for Oxford, but then the message is: MY NAME PRESENTLY OBSCURED, meaning his real name, Wriothesely, is hidden.

[@camt9967]

This is very interesting. Thank you

[@sislertx]

Amd how do u.come to know this... not suggesting u dont...just what sort of schools...just curious..was it all.from.college..what.college. The latin i had was so so poor as to be barely useful in medical.terms.

[@johnanthony8653]

@@sislertx I made a video where I go into a bit more detail on this subject. Given the available letters to work with, I applied synonymous meanings. Here's a link to the video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/laqTmIhjmLOFldk

[@sorenjensen8867]

Looks like the de Vere coat of arms is being hung there by a cable.

[@advancedfaces]

The copies of Robert Vaughn portrait of Henry also has the pigtail hair and ear ring most notable for South Hampton. My lord, it’s everywhere.

[@flo-llama]

Excellent video! You are circling closer and closer to the (not so secret) bloodline of QE1. 17th Earl of Oxford (son), Southampton (grandson) & 18th Earl of Oxford (great-grandson). All illegitimate. Why wouldn't a father ask a son to produce an heir? The original engraving showed a monarch & a soon-to-be monarch? Isn't it a fair comparison when viewed as an acknowledgement of their royal lineage?

[@theinkbrain]

@Flo Rida Wait! Are you saying that The 17th Earl of Oxford was Queen Elizabeth the First's son? And that Southampton (Wriothesely) was The 17th Earl of Oxford's son and that the 18th Earl of Oxford was Southampton's (and NOT the 17th Earl's) son? So who fathered the 17th Earl? Who was Wriothesley's mother? I am so confused.I thought the 18th Earl was The 17th Earls' son by his second marriage....

[@flo-llama]

Southampton's mother was his mother. You can see a portrait of her in one of David Shakespeare's videos. Who was his father is a better question. Was his mother pregnant when married? Why did her husband ban her from his house for adultery? Official story was (I think) an affair with the gardener.....seems an unlikely story to me given the class structure.

[@theinkbrain]

@@flo-llama I dunno - I watched a video which made a rather convincing case that Southampton was the son of Elizabeth I. I also heard it claimed that Oxford XVII wanted one of his daughters to marry Southampton aka Wriotheseley, which was the reason he wrote all those sonnets encouraging W.H (Henry W) to marry and have a son. So I don't know what to think.

[@flo-llama]

@@theinkbrain I'm confused as to why one of my responses was yanked. It had channel suggestions for you to check out. Truth be told, there are many theories as regards the situation. It is confusing. The coded messages and art works were intended for a select few. All we can do is look at the evidence and formulate our own best conclusions from it. I've got a theory of my own that supports 17 being QE1's son. I have no evidence except human nature, the actions of those with the desire for power and the knowledge that at that time it was not illegal for illegitimate children to attain kingship. Who was QE1's most trusted advisor? Who was 17's first wife? What power could one wield over a monarch with the knowledge of 17's parentage? IF, as many have proposed, 17 was to be acknowledged as QE1's heir - whose family would have profited most from a well placed marriage to 17? Human nature has never changed. The desire for wealth & power, and the actions taken to attain them, has always been with us

[@margarethoskins590]

And the point of the switch touching the coronet.

[@advancedfaces]

I am counting 18 loops on the decoration around the neck for both, is that important?

[@andersaxmark5871]

Very well done

[@mercedeslemp6449]

Thanks!

[@nightmisterio]

The star below is more correct than the upper one

[@rooruffneck]

I'd love to know more about the context of these kinds of pictures. Could the artist have suspected a fair amount of people to know each of them?

[@pauloldman804]

Dear Alexander is the Countess called a Maiden/Immaculate Virgin because although 'mother' to Henry she didnt give birth to the 18th Earl - the natural parents being Southampton/Rich ?

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Yes, that’s the way I interpret it.

[@72Yonatan]

Where was Edward de Vere buried? It appears to me that the male line itself died out, so how is it possible that today there are men claiming to be the modern descendants of this line, and who are called by the same title: Earl of Oxford? This is a mystery to me. I have read that Edward de Vere had a daughter or daughters who survived and married, but how would their sons possibly be called Earl of Oxford? Makes no sense to me.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

The current Earl of Oxford (strictly speaking his title is ‘Earl of Oxford and Asquith’) is not descended from the Veres. His surname is Asquith. There was quite a remonstrance when Herbert Asquith asked to be made Earl of Oxford as it was considered too grand a title for him, which is why he had to add ‘and Asquith’ . The same applied to the Harleys in the 18th century.

[@StevenParrisWard]

Excellent as usual.

[@karenhewett3214]

The coat of arms looks as if it is hung by strap over the crown.

[@willlockler9433]

Delightfully enlightening.

[@tmesisskewomorph7491]

Very interesting. Thanks.

[@floatingholmes]

I love this work you are producing and find this theory fascinating. But it stumbles for me on a simple question: HOW DID EDWARD DE VERE KNOW PENELOPE RICH WOULD PRODUCE A SON? The scandal seems to hinge on the idea that he was convinced HW and PR would, without question, be able to produce a surrogate heir if they wanted to. But they could have just as easily produced a daughter. So Oxford's conviction seems mysterious and unlikely to me if the order of events is that his pleas came before HW and PR consented to conceive a child together.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Nobody knew the baby would be a son. I have no idea if alternative arrangements were made in the event of Penelope Rich giving birth to a daughter, if Oxford intended to adopt her all the same or if Penelope Rich would have taken her on as her own. All we do know is that the babe was a boy and was consequently brought up as Oxford's. Alas I am not privy to the negotiations between Oxford, Southampton and Lady Rich. Oh to have been a fly on that wall! But how lucky we are to know what we know and how hungry for even more knowledge these tantalising snippets make us! In Shakespeare’s play ‘Troilus and Cressida’ the ‘honey sweet’ lord, Pandarus who wishes for a surrogated male heir so matching his niece up with Troilus, says to her ‘if my lord get a boy of you, you’ll give him to me’. In other words ‘I’ll take him if you give birth to a boy, but otherwise’ - does that help?

[@floatingholmes]

Yes, thank you very much for your thoughtful answer. I say that it helps and I mean that it helps me understand the way you are approaching this and holding what we do know apart from what we do not know. I think this is a productive way to go but it produces some perplexing puzzles. Apart from his conviction that Southampton should be capable of producing an heir for him, Oxford also seems to resent Penelope Rich's role in this very profitable scheme. Here, I am expressing my surprise that he refers to her so unflatteringly in the sonnets as the dark lady. The evidence that all this IS so rests on the one hand, while leaving me confused and unsatisfied on the other hand about WHY it is so. I eagerly await all of your work on this subject. I am extremely grateful.

[@wilsonbertram5328]

This is very clever and cunning, thank you. However, I don't understand what these poets and artists stood to gain by taking so much trouble to continue old gossip, especially when all involved were dead.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

An artist worth his salt is concerned above all with truth.

[@wilsonbertram5328]

@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank you Mr. Waugh. Yes, artists should be concerned to illustrate truth, and to bring out a response which will uplift the spirit. I don’t see that here. It looks more like sneering at the private tragedy of three dead men, not anything to edify the public. It might be helpful to know whether these ‘knowing’ men were just a bunch of literary snobs sniggering together about the ignorance of the public and the ignobility of their ‘noble’ superiors. On the other hand, might they have been moralists hinting at the duplicity of those in high places? Something of that sort would be necessary to elevate the matter to public concern. There’s a strong element of duplicity in this. Two Henries, two Earls, (two ‘horses ar**s’ even), two re-usings of someone else’s pictures. Two scandals possibly. Maybe the Oxford scandal was being re-used to obliquely refer to a contemporary Royal sexual scandal of a slightly different nature. Maybe they were not being cheap or crooked or slipshod in re-using the picture of the two Kings and substituting the faces of two Earls, since if the original picture was fairly well known, people would recognise that an Earl can stand-in for a King, and the Winter King was related to their current King. If the town of De Ver can be substituted for the town of Pressburg, Oxford may be recognised as a substitute for the King. Oxford had a scandal, James’ life and rule was a continuing scandal, and of much more importance to the public. Using Oxford(s)’ story may have been expected to provide some protection, as they could deny criticising the morals and policies of the King. The link between the scandals, and the shift in its nature may be seen in the emphasis on Southampton having been a famous ‘pretty boy’. James ruled through a succession of homosexual favourites, and additionally rewarded them with earldoms. I think it was Buckingham by this time. I think it is reasonable to suppose that there would have been far more public interest - in both senses - in current court scandals, rather than those of the previous reign. Those men, and interest in their problems, were dead; but their names might be revived as oblique criticism of the contemporary situation. (Queen Elizabeth had been criticised by referring to her as Richard II.) Why were those books and pictures published at that time, and who might have promoted and protected them? Was there some association with disgruntled courtiers? Was there sufficient discontent that these authors, artists and publishers could venture covert criticism of the King and his favourite in a way that would be sufficiently understood, to be popular and profitable and relatively safe? I suspect that the dead men told two tales, one their own, and the other a stick with which to beat James and Buckingham.

[@wilsonbertram5328]

Another idea comes to mind. The movement of Oxford18’s baton may be seen as a double strike at the King. By emphasising his surrogate Earl’s illegitimacy it reminds people of the rumour that James’ true father had been Rizzio, another ‘pretty boy’ like Southampton. As an emblem of military command against a background of continental war, it was a reminder that James was a coward, morbidly afraid of assassination, and that Buckingham had been responsible for an expensive and humiliating military defeat resulting from his incompetent management of a siege in France. (Eventually Buckingham was knifed by an officer who survived.) The exaggerated praise of Oxford18, an uncouth man of no particular merit or distinction apart from his high birth, also reflected upon the King, and by removing even that, it indirectly questioned the legitimacy as well as the merits of the King, under the flowery flattery usually addressed to monarchs. Even the prominence of horses in the picture, although socially and militarily appropriate, could be an indication that the story of the Earl was being used as a stalking horse from behind which the King was being attacked. I suppose that if the reading public could see this, so could the King and those around him; thus it is not surprising if the picture became extremely rare!

[@a_lucientes]

Apparently, Henry de Vere didnt look much Edward or Henry Worthlessly, at least in the few paintings Ive seen. Im sure it's difficult to judge sometimes,, because of the relative ages involved, or what one portrait happen to turn out like. For this reason, Im sure it is best to compare with all of the available images to compare, something I have not done.

[@misssarahashplant7493]

Perhaps he was a throwback.

[@b-sidevideos45]

Is it fair to call the picture a 17th century meme?

[@ericloscheider7433]

B-Side Videos that’s exactly what I thought

[@emiliopesapane1157]

Sorry but “Immaculate” referring to Mary - mother of Jesus in the Catholic theology means “born without the original sin”

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Thank you Emilio, I should have phrased that better. Christians, since the time of Augustine, have believed 'original sin' to be transmitted from generation to generation by sexual intercourse. I think it rather rum that the Countess of Oxford, a married mother in 1599, should be described in language that invokes comparison with the story of the virgin martyr Agnes and the sexless conception of her daughter Mary - virgin mothers both. That is all I meant to say.

[@emiliopesapane1157]

Alexander Waugh I think you did a remarkable research

[@jespermayland571]

Again, Dear Alexander, I am aghast and amazed of your dedicated detective work..! I'm a huge fan and must have watched all of your videos at least 4-5 times each..! You have, more than any other scholar out there, truly convinced me that De Vere is W.S. But...through the years, reading about the Baconian proposal, I DO get the feeling, that Bacon also has taken part in some way. Maybe by organizing, hiding clues, making the codes...! What is your opinion...was Bacon completely oblivious or did he take part in a "Shakespeare Factory" with De Vere as the main poet..? (I'm also currently reading your "GOD" and enjoying it tremendously! 😊)

[@shakespearemonologue]

Yes I often wonder about the role Bacon May have played too. So live these videos.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Dear Jesper. Thank you. I am bowled over by the intense interest that these videos are generating and the kindness and generosity of spirit of all those who are prepared to share their enthusiasm through these comments pages. Bacon, I suspect, was never far away from the Shakespeare project. I believe that he acted as an advisory patron to Ben Jonson when the folio was being assembled in 1622-23 and that he was hugely inspired by his cousin, Edward de Vere, to pick up the baton of literary patronage and universal knowledge after Oxford's death. I stand in awe of the pioneering achievements of the Baconians and was disappointed when the Francis Bacon Society turned down my application for membership. Bacon, a champion for the advancement of learning, would not have approved. To the De Vere Society, of which I am Chairman, all are welcome!

[@duderama6750]

With you sir, I concur. Oxford/Bacon truly were Poets very extraordinary! Cover'd o'er by shak and spur.

[@sonofculloden2]

Brilliant work Mr. Waugh. My mind goes to the place of DNA testing that we have today. Wonder if anyone in the Crown - genealogists etc. would ever consider seeing if it would be possible to test any lines of DNA from these lines to remove any doubt as to who was who - like the Shakespeare question - I think it’s time to let the truth have its day! Would be nice to know if indeed Wriothesley was the Queens son etc. Excellent work - as always - and I would like to say that all doubt has been removed from my mind as to the lineage of these men.

[@AlannahRyane]

You did it again.... you must have had a past life or ancestors involved in that drama and its is all bleeding out from your DNA! I discovered an ancestor on same page in Stratfords Holy Trinity marriage record as man from Stratford's daughter. I thought Ah Ha that is why I have believed all these years that he didn't author the plays my ancestor knew him and I'm carrying that memory in my DNA. Thanks so much a wonderful distraction always!!

[@markdodona2114]

As always interesting

[@jespermayland571]

You nearly gave me a heart attack..! I too fast read the headline wrong and thought you'd found the actual picture of Stratford Shaksper and that he would look nothing like the Sonet "mask"! 😄 Oh well. I'll keep dreaming! 😉

[@karenturnidge2721]

?????

[@thoutube9522]

There's no evidence that the Earl of Southampton ever had a love-lock .... EXCEPT for an engraving that showed he had a love-lock. Oxfordian scholarship? It would be a good idea.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

There is plenty of evidence for Southampton's lovelock outside of that one engraving. Try the oil paintings and miniatures. Stratfordian research needs to be improved.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

There is plenty of evidence for Southampton's lovelock outside of that one engraving. Try the oil paintings and miniatures. Stratfordian research needs to be improved.

[@thoutube9522]

@@alexanderwaugh7036 Whoops. I meant the Earl of Oxford. What I was attempting (unsuccessfully) to say was that I can't think of better evidence that Oxford had a love-lock than an engraving of Oxford with a love-lock. I know that you say it would have been unfashionable by this time, but there are later pictures featuring lovelocks here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovelock_(hair) Examples

[@nemeta3846]

gabriel/bethleem

[@radrickdavis]

Down, this means the soft scruff of a new beard, right? Appreciate helping American speakers to better understand classic English. Some words simply never stayed in use as people settled westward across the ocean.

[@AgathaVelvet]

Riveting.

[@misssarahashplant7493]

Omne meum, nihil meum.