Frankly, I think the Shakespeare conspiracy theories are a waste of time. Whether or not the chap from Warwickshire whose mug we've grown accustomed to actually wrote the plays and sonnets seems irrevelant. Whoever he was, Shakespeare was Shakespeare. Nonetheless, director, Roland Emmerich and writer, John Orloff, have put together this concoction of a film that I hear isn't half bad. Anyone seen it?
since I have other writing projects to attend to, and we seem to be going in circles as you demand more and more of my time, I am going to stop following this thread
So long, Sleuth.
Your walking away is no more than I expected. Oxfordians are notoriously antsy when it comes to dealing with facts. Whenever people wanna look at the evidence the de Vere crowd is half-way out the door.
But before you go, please take this with you:
Your statement that Southampton was the son of Elizabeth and de Vere is bullshit -- and here I once again use the appropriate clinical terminology. The only "proof" you cite for this asinine fantasy is that de Vere was Elizabeth's "favorite" and that Southampton was born nine months after the Twelfth Night revels.
That sounds very much like General Ripper: "You know when fluoridation began? . . . 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war commie conspiracy ?"
Robert Dudley was Elizabeth's "favorite", and every genuine scholar of the era knows it. But despite all the gossip and vicious slander, there's never been a shred of evidence that he ever fucked her. There's surely no evidence that de Vere ever fucked her or that anybody ever fucked her. By the time Southampton was born Queen Liz was about forty -- not a problem for a woman in these days, but definitely a problem in those. (Incidentally, is there any evidence that Oxford actually attended the revels of Twelfth Night that year?)
Oxford did not begin using the pen name "William Shakespeare" until 1593, with the publication of Venus and Adonis
Bullshit. There's no evidence -- lemme repeat this: there's no evidence -- that de Vere ever claimed he used the pen-name "Shakespeare". There's no evidence it was a "pen-name". (I thought we already dealt the issue of Elizabethan spelling?) He never said or wrote that he used that pen-name, nor did anybody else say or write that for nigh on three hundred years. I wonder how on earth you came to that conclusion?
I've already told you that Charlton Ogburn is no scholar. He and his parents are not only fulla shit, they're likewise guilty of making a generation of readers as fulla shit as they are.
To believe what the Ogburns say you've got to believe in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth -- (a la Jules Feiffer: "People in high places. Their names would astound you. People in low places. Concealing their identity under a cloak of poverty.") This conspiracy would require more conspirators than there are Oxfordians.
I can see that you have no confidence in my opinions, although I have researched the authorship question for over 20 years
Bingo. I don't have confidence in your opinions. You pissed away these twenty years reading the wrong books and listening to the wrong people. I consider your labors on research totally wasted -- especially for someone who purports to be an educator in his own right.
I wish you well in your other writing projects. But I beg you: keep out of the so-called "Shakespeare debate". You really don't have the knack for it.
For anyone who's still interested in watching this here's a fairly good version.
I've seen it. Instead of getting pissed, I laughed my ass off at the ludicrous drivel.
Pretty picture, though.
Gotta give it that.