Some Alarming Facts about William Shakespeare

First Id like to say that the information I am going to present has been discussed on many levels, but never truly looked into, or discussed when sharing or teaching his works.

Though this has lots and lots of proof that he (W.S) did not write any of the work that he is attributed to, he is still discussed today as "The greatest write in the English language".

The following will look into why he was not the write of those works, and we have been told a lie.

Here is what is told about him in the mainstream.

William Shakespeare

was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.[1] He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon".[2] His surviving works, including some collaborations, consist of about 38 plays,[c] 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

Speculation about Shakespeare

Around 150 years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to emerge about the authorship of the works attributed to him.[174] Proposed alternative candidates include Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.[175] Several "group theories" have also been proposed.[176] Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution,[177] but interest in the subject, particularly the Oxfordian theory, continues into the 21st century.[178]

en.wikipedia.org...

Now here are some of the facts that have made this one of the largest mysteries in these works.

Shakespeare's father nor children could not read or write.

The few signature's of Shakespeare's that remain show a very poor scrawl. Due to the arbitrary nature of phonetic spelling back then his name is spelt as Shakspere , Shaxpur, Shakpr, and Shagspere (as seen in the Marriage Bond of 1582) Shakspere's father is entered on the register of Stratford, on September 4th, 1568, being elected High Bailiff as "Mr. John Shakysper."

William Shakespeare was known in Stratford as a businessman, not a writer.

There are no manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays in the man's own handwriting--there are lots from other writers of the time.

He left no manuscripts in his will and no copies of his plays are mentioned as being in his house.

A monument put in Stratford church 15 years after he died show his hands resting on a sack (a sign of a tradesman) not a pen.

There is no evidence, apart from the name, to link the Stratford actor/businessman with the playwright.

The majority of the plays were published as quarto pamphlets, and in the first instance anonymously. Some, after the first or second edtions, bore the name "William Shakespeare,"-- and on by far the larger number, down to the last edition, that name is printed with a hyphen--"William Shake-speare," which could only have been pronounced at that time, as to suggest the shaking or brandishing of a spear. The name "Shake-speare" did convey the idea of Wisdom attacking Ignorance, and that it was not necessarily the name of any living person.
Ben Jonson's verses prefixed in the 1623 First Folio of the plays:

" In each of which he seems to shake a lance
As brandished at the eye of ignorance."

By the year 1623, seven years after the Stratford man's death , many of the plays were revised and some new plays came into existence for the first time.

www.sirbacon.org...

Now even with all of that information, which was important at the time, some are still trying to figure out whether or not W.S is the true writer of those works.

Now alot of the information and speculation has come from the work of Manly P. Hall. Here are some of his conclusions on why W.S is not the writer of the works, but Sir Francis Bacon may be.

Manly Palmer Hall writes: "There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere's handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will. The scrawling, uncertain method of their execution stamps Shakspere as unfamiliar with the use of a pen, and it is obvious either that he copied a signature prepared for him or that his hand was guided while he wrote. No autograph manuscripts of the "Shakespearian" plays or sonnets have been discovered"

Manly Hall states that it is quite evident that William Shakespeare couldn't unaided, have produced the writings. For one he didn't possess the necessary literary knowledge. He states that the town of Stratford didn't have a school capable of passing on the "higher forms of learning" that are reflected in the writings ascribed to him. His parents were illiterate, in his early life he had a total disregard for study and he never travelled outside of England.

To understand why Sir Francis Bacon is mentioned as the source of Shakespeare's work, one must understand the order of the Rosy Cross or the Rosicrucian's. According to the material I have read, most evidence seems to point to hints within the work itself. Hints only an initiate of the Rosicrucian's would have knowledge about, such as cryptographic symbolism, numerology, hidden watermarks and recurring miss-paginations thru the Shakespearian folios. Evidently there are also supposed to be hints in other seventeen century volumes that emphasize these claims. Manly Hall writes: "The philosophic ideals promulgated throughout the Shakespearian plays distinctly demonstrate their author to have been thoroughly familiar with certain doctrines and tenets peculiar to Rosicrucianism; in fact the profundity of the Shakespearian productions stamps their creator as one of the illuminati of the ages."

Apparently scores of volumes have been written just to establish Sir Francis Bacon as the real author of the work of William Shakespeare. Hall states that an impartial consideration of these documents cannot but convince anyone who has an open-mind regarding the authenticity of the "Baconian theory". He says that all those enthusiasts who for years struggled to identify Sir Francis Bacon as the true "Bard of Avon" could have won their case only if they had emphasized its most important angle, namely, that Sir Francis Bacon, the Rosicrucian initiate, wrote into the Shakespearian plays both the secret teachings of the Fraternity of the Rosy Cross and the "true rituals of the Freemasonic Order". Manly Hall writes: "A sentimental world, however, dislikes to give up a traditional hero, either to solve a controversy or to right a wrong."

www.redicecreations.com...

The reason I wanted to start this thread, is I see no reasoning in continuing until this day to lie about the works of Sir Francis Bacon. He was a very influential man, and I personally see no reason why this is still not disclosed. If you look into anything concerning W.S there is no way to not also see the failings of his true origin.

I see no reason not to give credit where it is due. I don't see the harm in finally telling the correct information, especially when this is still taught in Universities today.

Peace, NRE.

Shakespeare was a spy and a courier pigdeon for the Monarchy , delivering encoded messages for the Monarchy and elite in his plays .Alas something is a miss in the state of Denmark being a referance to the Merovingian Dagobert .

Very Interesting - I remember years ago a friend of mine passionately explaining to me that William Shakespeare was the illigitimate son of Elizabeth the "Virgin Queen" (Seems they had spin doctors back then too).
Shakespeare was secretly mentoredby Francis Bacon who was privvy to the heart of the inner court.
But as Shakespeare wrote ........." A rose by any other name is still a rose"
I myself am not troubled who actually wrote the plays and sonnets - as the writing itself is what is most important.
Hope this helps

Sounds like Shakespear was just another Walt Disney.

I've been reading through old Donald Duck comics, and it's amazing how Walt used to sign them: "by Walt Disney", even when he'd had nothing to do with them other than paying people to do it all for him.

Talking of Walt Disney (The ice man) reminds me of a story I heard - A few of the animation artists who worked inhis studio got together and made their own film for their own amusement - Let us say this film was rather raunchy and involved Micky and Minnie Mouse. Apparently they were reviewing their naughty creation one lunch break - I guees the hoots of laughter drew unwanted attention and they were unaware that Walt himself had walked into the studio - Walt silently watched the movie untill someone spotted him then silence fell. "Very funny" he said "Your all fired" - Maybe thats what inspired the Famous OZ mag folks.
Another story that cracks me up is a friend of mine who took his young daughters to Disney Land Paris.
Micky Mouse was taking the group of visitors on a tour - He picked out my friend Vic as a fall guy for the brunt of his jokes - After a while my Vic grew tired of it and the people who sheepishly laughed along - So he marches up to Micky the Mouse grabs him ny the neck and says "Shut the F--k Up or I'll knock your silly little head off"
Of course there was shock horror all around.

Originally posted by artistpoet
Another story that cracks me up is a friend of mine who took his young daughters to Disney Land Paris.
Micky Mouse was taking the group of visitors on a tour - He picked out my friend Vic as a fall guy for the brunt of his jokes - After a while my Vic grew tired of it and the people who sheepishly laughed along - So he marches up to Micky the Mouse grabs him ny the neck and says "Shut the F--k Up or I'll knock your silly little head off"
Of course there was shock horror all around.

I can just see it.

It can come down to bullying. A comedian once tried that with me. So I got up on stage and returned the favour, and the audience loved it. I wasn't paying to be made the butt of his jokes when they weren't even funny. That's just an excuse for humour for "comedians" with no talent.