Roland Emmerich Demolishes the Stratford Guy

Oh, this is a good one.  Ten Reasons Why the Stratford Man Did Not Write the Works of Shakespeare.  Congratulations to Roland Emmerich and all who put it together:


Published in: Uncategorized on October 11, 2011 at 6:27 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hank,
    Your theory is largely correct. The one error is that Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl, is the son of Elizabeth l. He is the natural son of Edward de Vere and Mary Browne Wriothesley, he is the “the darling bud of May”,
    i.e. ‘the darling scion of Mary’. Venus and Adonis gives Edward’s story by his own hand; see my website .
    In fact, all of ‘Shake-speare’s’ non dramatic poetry is autobiographical. You’ve shown the way with the ‘Sonnets’ and the Essex Rebellion. ‘Fidessa, More Chaste Than Kind’ by B. Griffin gives de Vere’s lament from the Tower in 1581. ‘Venus and Adoni’s is de Vere’s
    concession/surrender to Queen Elizabeth following the death of Anne Cecil. ‘The Rape of Lucrece’, the figurative rape of Elizabeth by Seymour, and the assault on the marriage of Church and State, gives hope to the English Catholics in the aftermath of the Spanish Armada – the event that crushed Counter Reformation confidence. Though I haven’t taken much time with “A Lover’s Complaint’, it appears to be an apologia for the Mary Wriothesley/Edward de Vere affair.
    If enough talent is directed towards understanding the metonymic, rather than metaphoric, character of the de Vere canon – and of his lexicographer’s grasp of language – we’ll soon ‘out the truth’. People often ask how those close to Court might have missed this intrigue; that de Vere is the Queen’s natural son. As he says in ‘Fidessa’, “How can I hide that is already known? I have been seen and have no face but one” (One, of course, is his metonym for the Queen). That this simple story has been completely lost is a testament to the thoroughness of Robert Cecil’s sentence against de Vere – ‘Damnation of Memory’.

    • Interesting material and thanks for it. I’ll look into the Griffin work.

  2. I’ve seen a lot about this film now. I’m glad that if anything, the film will at least bring the question of who really wrote the works. Plus, the film looks nicely shot.

    • Thanks for your comments!

  3. Also, I know the film specifically addresses the Earl of Oxford. I’ve come across many arguments in his case, here are bits I have found:

    1920 – J. T. Looney, a Gateshead schoolmaster proposes Oxford as the author behind Shakespeare in his book Shakespeare Identified. His followers have modified the theory to put Oxford at the head of a group of brilliant courtiers who produced the plays as a committee.


    Oxford’s biography also fitted the bill, according to Looney. As a courtier he had the necessary intimate knowledge of the monarchy and nobility. His extensive travels had caused him to be mocked as an ‘Italianate Englishman’. In 1598, Francis Meres named Oxford as ‘The best for Comedy among us’, which Looney asserted was evidence for Oxford having written plays – none of which exist under his name, perhaps because they were known under Shakespeare’s name?


    Shakespeare’s role in the syndicate was as the honest broker that negotiated with theatres and printers for production and publication of the plays. His name became the pseudonym that would protect the true authors form any politically dangerous material that they produced. Shakespeare’s acting knowledge may have aided the authors in rendering their literary productions into texts that were suitable for stage performance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: