Jim Warren – Foundations of the Oxfordian Claim

The evidence in support of Edward de Vere’s authorship of “Shakespeare’s” works is far stronger than most people today realize because much of the evidentiary basis uncovered by the first generations of Oxfordian scholars in the 1920s and 1930s has been forgotten. Of the eleven distinct lines of evidence they uncovered, only four are well known today. Three others are only partially known, and four more are mostly unknown. This presentation reviews all eleven lines of evidence in the order in which they were first uncovered to provide a sense of how the Oxfordian movement developed as well as information about the lines of evidence themselves.

[benc]

Thankyou James Warren for sharing these lesser discussed lines of inquiry and the huge job of re-publishing Percy Allen's work. Incredible!

[Short-Cipher]

So impressed with the seemingly infatigable Warren these past several years. Bravo!👏

[truthlove]

So glad this work is being done. Posting to help the analytics

[peckerwood]

Great Oxenford will yet surprise & amaze as the layers are beginning to be peeled away to reveal the Beauty and horror beneath the facade!

[alainaaugust]

Keep your site always subscribed precisely so I’ll know when this Annual Conference occurs. Your work is beyond cool, fascinating, historic. If any Oxfordian sees this: If a young Oxford impregnated Elizabeth, why didn’t she recognize the child? What happened to the child? Kings before Elizabeth had “legitimized” their bastard sons. Why didn’t she? If all the courtiers knew, what were the key drivers of their silence? “Their heads” is not an answer. Just why would they have been executed? What drove Oxford’s own silence? Did the lovers, Oxford and Elizabeth, come to hate each other? Might this put another sly meaning to his “Fair Youth, Fair Youth, have a son, have a son?” Is he lamenting his own? Your answers this time next year would be glorious. Blessings and success to you all.

[williamberven-phig]

I don't understand the Southampton parentage question still gets so much press. I find it completely implausible Elizabeth mothered a child. She was too intelligent and had too much at stake to risk such a thing, especially if the child wouldn't be recognized as an heir. We loose people going off on " conspiracy" tangents and not sticking to the the authorship evidence trail. I have the upmost respect for Alexander Waugh's intelligence as well but when he starts his numerology, mystic triangle stuff, I close down as do, I'm afraid, many persuadible people.

[ginawiggles]

Where is the complete set of James Warren's books on Percy Allen work available for purchase?

[edgarsnake]

So, Percy Allen was batshit crazy, Glad that got mentioned. The back and forth on Shakespeare's authorship is high debate. I've been convinced twice by both sides in the last 24 hours alone. Deep down, I'm an Oxfordian.

[joyplanta]

There is a preponderance of that de Vere wrote the plays, etc. There is hardly any evidence that the man from Stratford had anything to do with them; there is every evidence that he was practically illiterate. *of evidence

[josephhewes]

Someone needs to replicate and update Allen's research. Sounds like it can reinforce what's going on today.

[DrWrapperband]

Was Will Shaxsper from Stratford-upon-Avon lame? No. Was Shake-speare the Bard lame, yes. Was Edward DeVere lame, yes. Case closed.

[williamrubinstein]

Oxford lived from 1550 until 1604. Shakespeare wrote from c 1590 until 1613, when Oxford had been dead for nine years. Claiming that he wrote Shakespeare's works is therefore absurd. The Tempest was based on the Strachey Letter of 1610, which it was impossible for Oxford to have read. There is also Hand D, an actual sample of Shakespeare's handwriting as a playwright, whoever he was. I have never seen a comparison of Hand D with Oxford's handwriting, presumably because they were totally different. I urge you to check out the overwhelmingly strong case for Sir Henry Neville (c 1563- 1615).