tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8090287936167820877.post4602683235774237510..comments2024-03-24T07:16:41.217-07:00Comments on A World Elsewhere: Mr Anonymous : Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8090287936167820877.post-8132219080904094172011-09-06T11:34:30.125-07:002011-09-06T11:34:30.125-07:00Good point about the gloves, complete twaddle abou...Good point about the gloves, complete twaddle about the pseudonym. It baffles comprehension that people can entertain such contrived gibberish. But it obviously means something to you conspiracy theorists, so I’ll leave you to it….Finnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14610762619229547384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8090287936167820877.post-6411985504982945282011-09-05T16:59:41.797-07:002011-09-05T16:59:41.797-07:00Don't protest too much partner. You may end u...Don't protest too much partner. You may end up looking silly and ignorant. You presented a string of rationalizations I can knock down in a minute. But start with the initial facts and you may be on the way to learning and change. Look at the Shakspere signatures. An illegible scrawl by someone totally unfamiliar with a quill. No single letter formed the same or name spelled the same over the six signatures. And one of these was in 1612, well before his demise. The others, in January 1616, he wrote after testifying in print he was of sound mind and body. Add that no other mark of writing has ever been found connecting Shakspere to any form of communication in his entire life, and you will understand why some of us may be skeptical. As for the gloves, check the plays. He wasn't referring to tannery gloves but silken and crocheted, or perfumed, (which Lord Oxford brought back to Elizabeth from Italy and thence became a court favorite). And there were numerous references to "a letter" in the plots. But Shakspere couldn't form an alphabetical sign. There is more to the story. If you are curious, you will pursue, and gain enormously in the appreciation of the plays and thoughts of 'Shakespeare'. The pseudonym comes from Oxford's championship jousting--and his rebellious shaking of the spear of knowledge against ignorance, as Gilbert Harvey put it. Have fun, it is a great study.William Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09012399534900562162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8090287936167820877.post-28070599299703288942011-09-05T11:31:17.889-07:002011-09-05T11:31:17.889-07:00Thanks for your comment, it’s good to get feedback...Thanks for your comment, it’s good to get feedback. You seem to regard Shakespeare’s authorship as a ‘myth’ (has it really come to that?) and that most of the professors (‘the consensus view’) are dealing in ‘shallow assumptions’ without ‘open minds’, a charge which I am sure they would totally (and justifiably) reject. But have you considered the possibility, however remote it may be, that Shakespeare actually did write the plays? That his friends who said he ‘never blotted a line’ may have said so out of personal knowledge of the man? And if you want to look for textual evidence from the plays - which the de Veer and other anti-stratfordian types happily do - then how about the seventy or so references to glove making, the trade of Shakespeare’s father? I’m not totally convinced that an earl would know an awful lot about tanning leather to make gloves for ladies. But I welcome your comments and will probably enjoy the film when I see it.Finnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14610762619229547384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8090287936167820877.post-51280417742235010292011-09-04T21:11:56.137-07:002011-09-04T21:11:56.137-07:00I suggest you see the film before making pejorativ...I suggest you see the film before making pejorative comments about a multi-layered complex subject of which you seem to have only a superficial knowledge. The evidence for Edward de Vere is extensive and very convincing and there are many books describing this; however the search for the truth behind the myth requires an open mind, an inquiring mind that is open to looking beneath the shallow assumptions of the consensus view.Howard Schumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00691406515800937764noreply@blogger.com