How to Debate A Stratfordian! Edward De Vere Vs. Will of Stratford as the true William Shakespeare

In this video, I rebut the most popular arguments against Edward De Vere's claim as the true author of Shakespeare's works. Was Edward De Vere really dead before the writing of the Tempest? Did Ben Jonson really claim that William Shakespeare couldn't speak Greek or Latin? And is it really "classist" to question who wrote Shakespeare's plays? Watch to find out!
Though some call it a conspiracy, notable thinkers from Mark Twain to Sigmund Freud have been convinced that the real Shakespeare was not the man from Stratford-Upon-Avon. Future videos will continue to present evidence suggesting that "William Shakespeare" was actually the pen name of Edward De Vere, a notorious courtier who served Queen Elizabeth and was said by his contemporaries to have been the greatest living writer of comedies.

#shakespeare #edwarddevere #oxfordianism #shakespeareconspiracy #whowroteshakespeare #elizabethan #romeoandjuliet #controversy #authorshipquestion #hamlet #williamcecil #lordburghley #richardiii #benjonson #literature #books #scholarship #academia #alexanderwaugh #debate #howtodebate

[Icha]

Nice video, Phoebe! Just a note that hopefully helps the botanical point: Sir Thomas Smith was one of de Vere's first tutors. Sir Thomas had a fascination in horticulture, pharmacology and medicine (Mark Anderson's 2005 "Shakespeare by Another Name" p. 8), in addition to math, geography and astronomy. Sir Thomas' enthusiasm must have infected de Vere. When the young lad was already living at William Cecil's house, Cecil was also employing famous horticulturalist John Gerard for the Cecil House, which might further nourish de Vere's interest in botany (Anderson 2005, p. 20).

Also thank you for hosting the de Vere ball! I live too far away from NYC to have joined, but I hope there will be more de Vere balls in NYC and elsewhere as well (particularly the UK) for me and others to attend.

[bootube]

In 1612 WS gave evidence in a case concerning his long-term landlord in London.

His address was given as William Shakespeare of S-o-A in Warwickshire.

Do you accept that this means that Stratford WS was also London WS?

[BigDome]

Hi Phoebe, can I interview you ahout this subject for my podcast please?

[ronroffel]

You present the counter argument to Stratfordianism very well (pun intended). Here are some additional points to ponder.

I believe that the man who wrote the plays had a photographic memory. He says in Sonnet 122: "Thy gift, thy tables [books] are within my brain / Full-charactered with lasting memory". "Full-charactered" can only mean he remembered every word in whatever he read. So, when scholars say he plagiarized other writers' works (2:43) it becomes a problem. He plagiarized works which were not yet translated into either English or Latin but were still in Italian or Greek.

I love how you clarified the "small Latin and less Greek" line from Jonson's poem at 5:54. The line was meant exactly as you present it.

All claims the Stratford man would have learned Greek at the local grammar school (6:16) is more backward reasoning. There is no evidence that any English grammar school of the period taught Greek. It just wasn't necessary in day to day living. Even lawyers would not have learned it, unless, of course, they were Greek themselves.

Your video makes a great companion to By Plato's Beard a video I uploaded to my YouTube channel. Enter "Ron Roffel" in the search field and you will get my channel at the top of the list.

[paineite]

Very nicely done, madame. I've only JUST re-entered the fray on the Shakespeare question but having a great time surveying the present state of argumentation. THANK YOU for your great contributions.

[Tvarisch]

Well done Phoebe. I just read "cockney gutter swipe" in one epic response. Whoever he is, he's not a cockney is he, I call Stratford man Shoikspayer (I understand the Brummie accent didn't sound the same then but if it's good enough for Lisa Tarbuck).
The dating argument, just like everything else in this, turns into yet another Perry Mason moment once you take the lid off.
We don't pronounce the second W in Warwick btw.

[XopherPaul]

Nice shadow-boxing! I am very curious, however (dubious, in fact) about your claim at (1:50) that "several eyewitnesses, including writer Anthony Munday and French Ambassador Mauvisiere recounted a 1579 courtly revel in which a giant prop ship was crashed onstage, from which Edward de Vere emerged to theatrically present Queen Elizabeth with a splendid jewel." I've never heard this and would be very interested in your source/s for this. The closest thing I'm aware of is Gilbert Talbot writing to his father, the Earl of Shrewsbury, on 5 March 1579: "It is but vain to trouble your Lordship with such shows as were showed before her Majesty this Shrovetide at night. The chiefest was a device presented by the persons of the Earl of Oxford, the Earl of Surrey, the Lords Thomas Howard and Windsor. The device was prettier than it happened to be performed, but the best of it, and I think the best liked, was two rich jewels which were presented to her Majesty by the two Earls." It sounds as if both Oxford and Surrey presented the queen with a rich jewel at a "show", or "device", but no mention whatsoever of a prop ship of any kind. Can you enlighten me?

[roberts]

How to debate them is outside my expertise. But my observations about Stratfordians: They belong usually to college Literature departments, where they lack the skills of historians and other scholars that evaluate evidence; they are academics with strong disincentives to challenge orthodox, approved views; they have publishing relationships supported by orthodox institutions such as the Stratford Birthplace Trust. Anti-Stratford scholars come from a wide range of academic and professional disciplines and analytical tools, from cryptography, law, history, science and psychology.

[bryan.h.wildenthal]

Kudos to Phoebe DeVere for this great new contribution to the Shakespeare authorship discussion. As she will soon find (if she doesn't know already), defenders of the traditional view are not interested in any such discussion. They just want to shut it down, and ridicule and marginalize anyone seeking to engage in such a discussion. Any of us could be mistaken, but how will we ever find out if we don't at least discuss it?

[roberts]

The study of Shakespeare’s works would be greatly enhanced if Stratford apologists would turn their considerable resources and energies toward understanding how the work reflects the author’s life. They could also show more interest in his poetry.

[thoutube]

One point at a time.

Shakespeare appeared in a London court in connection with a case concerning his long-term landlord. On his deposition, his name is given as William Shakespeare, and his address as Stratford upon Avon.

Do you accept that this indicates that Warwickshire Shakespeare was also London Shakespeare?

[amandaeliasch]

Great meeting you yesterday. Very succinct and interesting.

[patricksullivan]

Excellent job, Phoebe. I would suggest going further with the evidence from Sir Philip Sidney's 'Defense of Poesie'. I.e, how do Stratfordians explain away that he would have had to have seen Henry V long before 1586 (when he was killed fighting the Spanish). That's way too early for 'Will' to have written it.

Not to mention that a commoner like Will would not have gotten away with insulting Sidney for writing a sonnet about his horse at any time.

[BruceKoller]

Well done. You make your points clearly and simply. Very refreshing and I challenge any Stratfordian to do the same (without sarcasm or ad hominen attacks). If their case is so strong, why not state it clearly and simply?

[MarkChittom]

Straw man argument. Ending with appeal to authority. Good for cocktail chatter but wouldn't hold up against a scholar. I do find the authorship question fascinating. Thank you Phoebe for making these videos. I'm curious what Oxfordian's think of the recent news of a tract claimed to have been written by William Shakespeare's sister Joan.

[Northcountry]

Well Done, Phoebe, Thank you for your insights !

[EndoftheTownProductions]

Shakespeare refers to the Gunpowder Plot in Macbeth. He mentions "equivocation" and "equivocator" and this refers to the Catholic Priest Henry Garnet who was associated with the plot. There are also other allusions to the plot in the play. The date of the Gunpowder Plot was November 5, 1605. Therefore, the play Macbeth must have been completed after this date and most likely finished in mid to late 1606. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, died on June 24, 1604, which obviously makes it impossible for him to have written the play Macbeth which has been attributed to Shakespeare and later published in the 1623 First Folio. It is difficult to write a play after you have died and there is obviously no way for Edward to have known of the Gunpowder Plot and the trial of Henry Garnet before his death.

[meghanandrockmackay]

Very well said. Let's Give Edward the recognition that he deserves.

[vincentsmith]

She's very VERY combative on the videos.
But presented with evidence, she simply blocks.
Pathetic, pusillanimous and hypocritical.

Debate? If only Oxfordians would ALLOW it!

Sadly, they're too scared of the evidence.

[billglaser]

Wonderful presentation, Phoebe! I expect many more will follow. After years of watching thousands of YouTube videos, I believe this is the first time I have ever commented. You and the replies you've received so far have lit a fire that motivates me to want to spend the rest of the evening writing this commentary. However, I'll force myself to keep this as brief as possible.

First of all, "What difference does it make who wrote the works?" many people ask. My answer is that it is like going from black and white TV to color.

For those curious enough to truly investigate the authorship question. I encourage you to look at evidence from all sides. That includes the arguments for other candidates besides those for Stratfordman and Oxfordman. As you learn each piece of evidence, ask yourself how strong is that evidence in determining authorship. Use occam's razor. For example, is this piece of evidence derived from imagination or first-hand experience?

Here's just one:
In "A Midsummer Night's Dream" Act V, Scene 1, Theseus says:

Where I have come, great clerks have purposed
To greet me with premeditated welcomes;
Where I have seen them shiver and look pale,
Make periods in the midst of sentences,
Throttle their practised accent in their fears
And in conclusion dumbly have broke off,
Not paying me a welcome. Trust me, sweet,
Out of this silence yet I pick'd a welcome;
And in the modesty of fearful duty
I read as much as from the rattling tongue
Of saucy and audacious eloquence.
Love, therefore, and tongue-tied simplicity
In least speak most, to my capacity.

If you understand what Theseus is saying, I ask is this the product of someone's imagination, or is it something the author lived? Since Edward de Vere was Queen Elizabeth I's roving ambassador, it seems to me that he must have had this experience more than a few times.

Stratfordians keep saying, "Show us the evidence!" My answer to that is to look at the works; i.e. the plays, the poems, and the sonnets, and then look at the life of Edward de Vere. I have found in my discussions with Stratfordians is that they do not know Edward de Vere's biography and/or they haven't read more than the most populer works (if that much). It blows my mind that anyone who knows about the life of de Vere and has read "All's Well That Ends Well" and "Timon of Athens" can't see the connections.

That's what it comes down to. How many connections can you draw between any candidate and the works? There are hundreds of connections between the works and Edward de Vere. Stay tuned to this channel, as I am sure Phoebe will show you a lot of them.

The Gunpowder Plot in Macbeth? Where? The word "equivocation"? That's it?