Shakespeare did NOT exist. Your schools lied to all of you.

History has provided us with quite clear records of Shakespeare's attendance at school, of his father's business activities and service as town mayor, and of the early influences in Shakespeare's life and entry into the acting/writing profession. While it is true that he did not attend university, the rigors of Elizabethan schools was such that he was very far indeed from being "illiterate." When you re-characterize him as the son of an upper middle class family who attended school and who was known to have been an actor in the King's Men group, the whole thrust of the opening post is suddenly devoid of meaning.

lol I hated Shakespeare in school. Really bored me. People dont talk like the scripts in his plays and they will never do say again. So what is the point in learning it?? I had a B in A level tho, somehow lol

It freakethed me outh how one obtained such a fine distinguished gradeth ha ha

It's not just David Icke who has written about this. Hell, here's a quite recent article from NPR: www.npr.org...

Morning Edition, July 3, 2008 · In the mid-1800s, Americans were so enthused about William Shakespeare that a rivalry between the two foremost Shakespearean actors led to a riot.

Well, there's something that makes modern-day scholars of Shakespeare want to riot: when anyone questions whether the man from Stratford-upon-Avon really wrote the works that bear his name.

It drives scholars mad. Still, a host of brilliant minds have done just that: Sigmund Freud, Charles Dickens and Orson Welles are among those who didn't believe that Shakespeare penned those famous plays.
...
"We have been able to discover, over many generations, about 70 documents that are related to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, but none of them are literary," says Daniel Wright, an English professor who directs the Shakespeare Authorship Research Center at Oregon's Concordia University.

"They all speak to the activity of a man who is principally a businessman; a man who is delinquent in paying his taxes; who was cited for hoarding grain during a famine," Wright adds. "We don't have anyone attesting to him as a playwright, as a poet. And he's the only presumed writer of his time for whom there is no contemporary evidence of a writing career. And many of us find that rather astonishing."

"Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare": www.doubtaboutwill.org...

Just to let you know David Icke also said that he was the Son of God on national television.

Just to put things in perspective a little bit.

Originally posted by rufusdrak
Just to let you know David Icke also said that he was the Son of God on national television.

Just to put things in perspective a little bit.

If he had said "a" son of god, rather than "the" son of god, then he would have been correct.

John 10

29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30I and my Father are one.

31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Also

Psalms 82

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

So, he is not too far wrong really. Only if he claims to be the only one is he in error.

Originally posted by enir nabu
Shakespeare did NOT exist. Your schools lied to all of you.

Not mine, enir nabu. I went to grammar school in the late 1970s and early 1980s where, Shakespeare being mandatory to the English Literature curriculum, we were actually taught that the identity of 'Shakespeare' was a bit of a mystery.

Back then, the focus was on Bacon and Marlowe. However, since then I'm more engaged with the theory regarding Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.

EDIT: just adding a rather bizarre link to one of the many anti-English 'Shakespeare-Cockroach' oddities floating around the internet. Apparently, this particular slur developed following the controversy regarding Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty's treatment by some Neanderthals on a British 'reality TV' show. I've been told it became quite popular amongst many Irish with anti-British/English sympathies.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by Merriman Weir]

This is a complicated story.

Personally, I don't believe that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare. Being Francis Bacon itself was a fulltime job, even for so talented a person as Francis Bacon.

To ask a person like Bacon, an important philosophical and scientific writer and speculator as well as an important courtier to also be the greatest writer in world literature as a secret hobby, is asking too much in my opinion.

Elizabethan writing is full of uncredited quotes, hidden cyphers, codes, secret homages, winks and nudges. It was the style of the time.

A lot of more credible people than Icke believe that Bacon was Shakespeare. It's an interesting literary discussion that has been batted back and forth for a long time. I don't believe that Shakespeare was a false face for someone else, although most scholars agree that some of his plays show evidence of collaboration.

this ones for the op when he wakes up, jewish blood cam from sumairia so of course if they were to keep true to thier own faith the story of "moses" and "noah"(which are hebrew words not names) would have had to have been brought into the next step of it. i think largly the bible should be taken very literily, but made sure the thought is in the right context. i personaly think laterily about things so as not to miss the punch line more things have been removed than added if i were to guess.
bacon was shakespeare and printed a revised translation of the old testement and the gospel. big woop i got taught the same as the grammer school guy(comprehensive aint too bad yo) his identity was in question and that fransis may have been a likley candidate
love ad light
5

reply to post by daxman


lol, i too i got a grade way beyond expectation as i hated it. Perhaps there was some conspiracy in giving higher grades so as to keep shakespear on the curriculam

Originally posted by 5ive the light
i got taught the same as the grammer school guy(comprehensive aint too bad yo) his identity was in question and that fransis may have been a likley candidate

Nothing wrong with comprehensives at all. In fact, I wish I'd gone to a comprehensive as I didn't exactly fit in with the class system at the grammar school I attended.

Just so there's no confusion, I mentioned 'grammar school' in the sense of 'the school I attended from the ages of 11 to 16'. It wasn't a case of 'hey! I went to a school where the masters looked like Hogwarts extras with mortar boards and gowns! Aren't I great?'.

Anyway... regarding Shakespeare's identity, and Stratford's tourist industry aside, I'm not sure it really matters that much. The literature itself is all that really matters.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Anyway... regarding Shakespeare's identity, and Stratford's tourist industry aside, I'm not sure it really matters that much. The literature itself is all that really matters.

Agreed.

Incidentally, just for the sake of discussion. Can anyone think of another first rate scientist who was also a first rate literary figure? I don't mean scientist who wrote fiction. I mean someone who excelled at both.

Michael Crichton was a doctor and fiction writer, but I don't know how good a doctor he was.

The best candidate I can think of was Isaac Asimov. David Suzuki, a well known geneticist in Canada said that Asimov was a better scientist than he was and of course he was a great science fiction writer.

Francis Bacon was operating near the summit of philosophical and scientific writing at his period in history and Shakespeare is at the summit of world writing for all time.

I can't think of anyone else who ever pulled that off, to be at or near the best in two divergent mental disciplines like that.



[edit on 25-2-2009 by ipsedixit]

ok ok to answer a few of your questions...

I never said all of your schools lied to you. I posted the headline as a general statement. And this is not about an accusation towards specific schools that teach misinformation. This post had to do more with the fact that we have been misled for many years by people we deem as teachers.

Secondly, you're missing the point when many of you say "well it doesn't matter WHO wrote any of it since i was good literature." If i hand you poison and handed it to you in a pretty bottle, would you drink it and say "well it's poison but that bottle sure was pretty"?? Of course not. I don't care how good the literature is, when the means of how it got to me was through tons of lies.

Third, the point of the secrecy behind all of this and much more being SO bad is that the coded messages are being put in all of this literature for other high initiates to decode and act upon the information. It is not so that all of us get a beautiful romantic story.

Fourth, I never said it was only Francis Bacon who penned each and every story written. He had a huge hand in it as well as many many many other high intiates all over the world, such as the Earl of Oxford among many others, working in conjuction with each other to put out these coded stories.

When they talk about the "Queen of the Fairies" in Shakespeare's play...it's a direct point of symbolism. The symbol being Titania, goddess of the Titans from mythology which many high initiates worship to this very day...the same way Francis Bacon and many of his cohorts did in his day. Titania was supposed to be revered as the goddess of the sea/underworld, as well. Does Titania sound like a boat that sank to you?? Does it? It does to me. right around 1912...heard of it? The Titanic? Where did those people go? In the underworld of the sea? Ever heard of ritualistic sacrifice?

The point of all of this and much more symbolism and codes is that it is wrong for people from many many years ago to find information that is meant for ALL OF US...then to steal, burn, hide or destroy the original info and then give all of us loose translations that benefit them while hoarding the information for themselves and their families/bloodlines. It happened with each bible, holy book, etc., ever written and it happens in GARBAGE we're taught in school.

Get it?

reply to post by azureskys


well i am glad this peaked your interest and good luck in your research! it's always beneficial to your brain to get the truth!

Originally posted by rufusdrak
This is all very well known for a long time and highly disputed. There has been much evidence now to scholars for a long time that Francis Bacon is indeed the true Shakespeare. It is a point of much contention amongst Oxfordian scholars and such, there are entire societies (at least one that I know of) dedicated to this single cause/contention.

In the end, does it really matter as much who it was or how many people it was that wrote those plays? On one hand we should just enjoy the plays for what they are and the author(s) shouldn't matter, but I know it still does because humans are idolizing creatures by nature.

===========================

well of course it matters where misinformation comes from!! if you don't care where your information comes from then keep believing Benjamin Franklin "invented" electricity and that Abe Lincoln freed the slaves!

When someone lies to you, don't you care?

The question of whether Shakespeare was the author of the work has been bandied about for years. There are a lot of questions and some reputable literary players have engaged in the speculation. De Vere or Bacon? Elizabeth? Marlowe?

All these questions came out decades after his death. I've been to Stratford and seen the desk that the young William carved his name in. That he existed is beyond reproof. Documents are available here.The birth and death certificates exist for him and his wife and father. There are extant deeds to properties owned by Shakespeares. Royal documents of Patronage exist. In his day, he was successful but hadn't been recognized as the embodiment of human genius he has since become.

Only since his posthumous star has risen have the conspiracy theories arisen. That the vast majority of academia have accepted that the man from Stratford has written such plays and sonnets is not quite enough to silence the doubters.

Shakespeare (opinion) is one of the most significant humans in history. His soliloquies were written 400 years ago and still resonate. Hamlet is quoted and used in Psychology books. "Oh, that this too solid flesh would thaw, melt and resolve itself into dew" is cited as an early description of depression. Macbeth's "Time...is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (IIRC)is profound. He has no equivalent in any language.

I can't relate to unsubstantiated theories that William Shakespeare was not the author of the most significant body of work in the English language.

His grave epitaph doesn't help...

GOOD FREND FOR JESUS SAKE FORBEARE
TO DIGG THE DUST ENCLOASED HEARE.
BLEST BE YE MAN YT SPARES THES STONES
AND CURST BE HE YT MOVES MY BONES

For the conspiracy fans, his grave has never been disturbed since burial. He died on the date of his birth. Last year renovations were completed on the broken headstone and they went to great pains to leave his bones undisturbed

reply to post by badmedia


to my knowledge Icke said he was THE SON OF GOD, to which the audience exploded in absolute hilarity. To this day he tries to down play that famous incident when he proclaimed to be the son of god on national television.

Originally posted by enir nabu
ok ok to answer a few of your questions...

I never said all of your schools lied to you. I posted the headline as a general statement.

There's nothing general about "your schools lied to all of you". That's pretty much as absolute as you can get.

Secondly, you're missing the point when many of you say "well it doesn't matter WHO wrote any of it since i was good literature."

No, it's only missing the point if you value the conspiracy over the actual literature. If someone doesn't buy into your particular conspiracy or is already familiar with issues around Shakespearean authorship, then the quality of the literature may indeed be the most engaging and enduring aspect.

When they talk about the "Queen of the Fairies" in Shakespeare's play...it's a direct point of symbolism. The symbol being Titania, goddess of the Titans from mythology which many high initiates worship to this very day...the same way Francis Bacon and many of his cohorts did in his day.

I'm not sure why allegory and symbolism is such an issue for you - there's no real secret to this. Any material, Shakespeare or otherwise, covered in an English Literacy class actually focuses on unravelling meaning from the words.

I also think you're taking a lot of this out of context. Much of the material written around this time alluded to 'myth' and ancient history as the comparisons to mythology or ancient greats were flattering. The elite love a good arse-licking, whether it's the 16th C or the 21st C.

I'm intrigued as to how you're going to weave Spencer's 'Faerie Queen' into this. It carried far, far more weight than Midsummer Night's Dream did at the time.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by enir nabu
ok ok to answer a few of your questions...

I never said all of your schools lied to you. I posted the headline as a general statement.

There's nothing general about "your schools lied to all of you". That's pretty much as absolute as you can get.

Secondly, you're missing the point when many of you say "well it doesn't matter WHO wrote any of it since i was good literature."

No, it's only missing the point if you value the conspiracy over the actual literature. If someone doesn't buy into your particular conspiracy or is already familiar with issues around Shakespearean authorship, then the quality of the literature may indeed be the most engaging and enduring aspect.

When they talk about the "Queen of the Fairies" in Shakespeare's play...it's a direct point of symbolism. The symbol being Titania, goddess of the Titans from mythology which many high initiates worship to this very day...the same way Francis Bacon and many of his cohorts did in his day.

I'm not sure why allegory and symbolism is such an issue for you - there's no real secret to this. Any material, Shakespeare or otherwise, covered in an English Literacy class actually focuses on unravelling meaning from the words.

I also think you're taking a lot of this out of context. Much of the material written around this time alluded to 'myth' and ancient history as the comparisons to mythology or ancient greats were flattering. The elite love a good arse-licking, whether it's the 16th C or the 21st C.

I'm intrigued as to how you're going to weave Spencer's 'Faerie Queen' into this. It carried far, far more weight than Midsummer Night's Dream did at the time.

======================

you are 100% correct. I mistyped my headline and included the word "all" and for that I apologize. Not every school regurgitates lies.

as far as valuing conspiracy over literature...that's never the case. I personally do not enjoy being lied to on such a grand scale and if I feel I have been lied to then I don't CARE what the literature says. I want to know why I was lied to, what the true story behind what I am reading is and what the coded messages mean and for whom they were meant. Like The Matrix...I'd rather not eat the steak if I know I'm being tricked to "taste steak". Most people would gladly keep eating the steak. We're different.

I think YOU take allot for face value like most people do. If that works for you then continue enjoying your life that way. I enjoy living my life this way...when I discover I've been lied to...I try to find out why. That's just me.

I chose this specific topic about Shakespeare because I was asked to give my viewpoint on this website by friends. Trust me, I already am quite aware that millions of authors, painters, architects, etc., work with esoteric knowledge and myths that existed at the time of Shakespeare's writings. I'm getting to them on ATS soon. Don't worry.

I don't dispute a man named Shakespeare existed. I am saying he didn't write the fairy tales we all read and are led to believe he wrote. Simple.

Same as Jesus. A guy named Jesus existed...sure. He's just not the guy everyone thinks he was.

Er, Um, You did not happen to see this topic discussed in the debate forum did you?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Interesting line of thought, however there is much more to discover before you make your final conclusions on the Authorship of Shakesper of Stratford verses Shakespeare of London as well as Shakespeare the playwright, poet.



[edit on 25-2-2009 by antar]

the irony is that whatever controversial and/or "conspiracy"-minded "reported" by some current modern time "famous" conspiracy theorist/scholar will be embraced as the ultimate truth by the followers without their own research

it won't surprise me that in a year or hundred two three, there will be theorists and scholars fighting over if the David Icke ever existed

[edit on 25/2/09 by IchiNiSan]