Tom Regnier - Justice Stevens, the Law of Evidence, and the Shakespeare Authorship Question

[@angelacosta279]

My beautiful husband! So proud of you! I miss you so much 🖤

[@ericvanjames8395]

Love listening to--and learning from--Mr. Regnier. Thank you, sir! Rest in peace. ~

[@joecurran2811]

So you should be!

[@chicchechicche]

❤

[@AngelEagle44]

This is one of the best presentations and logic given for the truth to come out Ever The Truth! Tom Regnier Nails It! R.I.P.

[@mmmaria]

I’m going to miss Tom. I keep rewatching his presentations.

[@SoulJake]

RIP Tom! Thanks for being such a wonderful ambassador and statesman for the true Bard! You will be sorely missed.

[@pbredder]

We've lost one of our own, with Tom Regnier's death. He has made many valuable contributions to the case for Oxford as Shakespeare, especially with respect to the law and the rules of evidence. This recent talk is one of his best.

[@peroskarsson8455]

Regretably Tom Regnier past away the mounth before this film went on the air. He was always intresting to listen to.

[@QED_]

To me, the pivotal mystery may very well be: "What happened to Shakespeare's manuscripts and letters (?)" No evidence that the man from Stratford ever had them. And no evidence that the Earl of Oxford ever had them. Which inclines me to dismiss both as candidates for being Shakespeare . . .

[@Dharmaku56]

Well done! He sold me that devere is/was Shakespeare. What about the argument from some that say devere had died and that additional plays were produced afterwards. Nevertheless, Shakespeare is in great doubt.

[@polmatthiasson9564]

Rest In Peace, Mr Regnier. Gone far too soon. After reading Looney and many of the Oxfordian books post-Looney, as well as watching a ton of talks in support of Oxford, is that in their zeal to produce evidence in support of Oxford’s candidacy they’ve actually wrecked the idea of anonymity being the modus behind Oxford’s need for a pen name/front man. It would appear that every one of the intelligentsia at the time could have easily seen through the smoke screen and concluded Shakespeare was a shill- and yet no contemporaries ever did- even after the Earl’s death and more surprisingly after the First Folio published twenty years later. This doesn’t mean Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, but there is something key missing here.

[@jrbanks2983]

During the Q n A... one fella asked if 'Shakspeare' actually knew he had a roll to play - as the front man - then I think this was entirely a bu$$iness arrangement. Follow the Money❗ When just enuf aristocrats, who were artists, musicians & playwrights had time together to throw ideas around... they came up with a secret plan. (Later.. IMO.. Freemasons rewrote each play & added in all kinds of clever hidden info. The original writers would never have had time to do neatly do the hidden circles, squares, Rt angles 📐 & letters adding up to 17 etc with a time crunch to get another play copied and in the hands of the actors & director. Those additions, IMO, came later - in the Folio edition! It's my belief that... (1) [They] wanted plays to be smarter, make better sense (plots) & wanted the language to be more refined. They wanted some political rich guy's reputations exposed - wanted the people to laugh at the upper class. But, what they wrote...had to be secret! I think aristocratic writers were itching to just take over ALL of it, especially a money making scheme to even pay enuf to build new bldgs & pay actors - but the aristocrats would control the money. (Think movies, music... and publishing houses today. Not much has chg'd, eh?) Yet 2)....NO! Aristocrats were not at all 'allowed' to be seen as making money from acting or writing plays. But write they did. Using a pen name was common at the time - but how would the money made be handled if anyone knew any aristocrat later rec'd the money? (3) Hatch a Plan I'm still thinking that a half dozen or more writing aristocrats wanted their plays done on stage and done as they wrote them. Because they'd be in the audience (box seats) they could enjoy the plays & especially see n feel how the audience rec'd each. (4) Serious Money for Here is where I believe some serious mtgs went on with writing aristocrats (must've had legal training) on how to maximize ticket sales. This is marketing! They must've sensed that having one front man means the crowd (ticket buyers) would return again n again if they really loved WS's latest play.... there'd surely pay for the next one. Easier to advertise...? Once popular, the aristocrats were savvy watching the crowd become jammed into the theatre. They had large sums of money now, enough to build more theatres. (5) Hatching the legal side of the Plan... I think a banker or legal persons oversaw the money from tickets. (later their hands would be ALL over the larger sums coming in from the Folio sales!) ((Bet cha!)) I'd bet all I have to say the person/s in charge of this scheme knew, and did, get in touch w 'Shakspeare' to hand him an agreed-upon sum after every play etc. *Foundation: Grand money making schemes are run by filthy rich, highly intelligent people - usually lawyers & w banking backgrounds. They chose a duffice 🤪 to act like he was THE real Shakspeare playwright, agreed to never admit otherwise etc. They chose (whomever 'they' are) someone who'd keep their mouth shut, convinced the crowd he really wrote plays, etc etc. [They] had to know they could bribe n control him. He'd act... 🎭 I'm thinking of this much like the way today's popular singers & actors get 'used' by agents (and their cunning accountants, bankers etc). Something along these lines is where my mind is going. I think more then one aristocrat wrote, then submitted, plays... All under the fake name Shakespeare. I don't think it's just deVere or Francis Bacon. I think there were others. Then the final secrets were added to the writing, by an expert in written codes & cipher expertise. (BTW, Bacon and many aristocrats were proficient w numeralogy & ciphers.) These secrets were never intended for "the mob" to find. The mob didn't even know they were there. After the Folio was for sale, at first only really rich folk could afford them, let alone read, w cryptic knowhow. Sigh... The lengths people go to...in the quest to make money & Fame.

[@brendanward2991]

If Shakspere was an actor, then he was literate. How would an illiterate actor learn his lines? The illiterate signatures from the end of his life are a sign of scrivener's palsy.

[@daniellemcneill4870]

They had literate people called “readers” who were employed to read out lines to illiterate actors so they could learn them.

[@dukadarodear2176]

@@daniellemcneill4870 Interesting explanation. Certainly we can't presume that all theatre actors and showmen were literate during the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras.