The Shakespeare Authorship Conspiracy: Key questions.

The Shakespeare authorship conspiracy : Key questions with the inevitable conclusion.

#WhoWasShakespeare #Marlovians #TheRealShakespeare #ShakespeareExposed #MarloweWasShakespeare #ShakespeareAuthorship #ShakespeareDebate #MarloweTheory #AuthorshipQuestion #ShakespeareMarlowe #ShakespeareDebate

[ronroffel]

Well done. You have posed most of the important questions regarding the authorship question.

I must take umbrage however at the final conclusion that Marlowe was the author of the plays and poems attributed to Shakspere of Stratford. While the Marlowe conspiracy theory seems plausible, it falls apart under scrutiny. Why would the Crown (or anyone else) have gone to so much trouble to keep him alive when it was simpler to have him killed or exiled far away and be done with it? It makes no sense to have put him in "witness protection" which is a concept only known in the past century. In previous eras unwanted individuals who were still valuable were shipped off to colonies far from home, yet the Marlovian conspiracy puts the playwright in Europe, which was easily accessible by a quick hop across the English Channel, where his enemies could get to him.

The only people who survived such exile were people with Catholic leanings who could rely on the underground network of priests and nobles living in England to ship them to safe houses both in and out of England. Marlowe was a notorious atheist unless the contemporary records are wrong, so it would not have been possible for him to have been secreted away by Catholic sympathizers or recusant Catholics who feared for his life. Guarding such a public atheist from harm would have risked the lives of everyone who sheltered him.

The entire Marlovian theory rests on the idea that somehow this atheist spy was still valuable for some unknown reason. There is nothing in the plays and poems to suggest that he was valuable other than to provide the Court and patrons of the theater with superb plays, which in those days were seen as lowly entertainment, especially when presented outside of Court. And if he had any information which could have compromised any noble or people in high posts, it would have still been easier and more efficient to have him murdered rather than leave him alive to potentially blackmail anyone of authority. The records show, however erratically, that this was what happened.

The Marlowe theory rests on a paradox that someone wanted him alive but still needed him to appear dead. And there is no clear motive for anyone to have kept him alive whatsoever. Indeed, if he was kept alive, it would have been easier to keep him in some noble's estate as a hired servant under a false name, but I doubt that he would have accepted that since it appears from the record he had a huge ego. Despite several generations of scholars and researchers looking into this, nobody can offer a reason why he would have been living secretly in Europe without adding layers and layers of speculation over what could be answered clearly.

From what I understand of the theory, it takes convoluted reasoning and close examination of the texts of the plays and speculation on the involvement of people like the Earl of Southampton (who was himself in trouble with Queen Elizabeth for his role in the Essex rebellion) to make the facts stick together. Spy networks back then were sophisticated, to be sure, but I seriously doubt that anyone would have wanted the troublesome, unprolific, and controversial Marlowe secretly alive for any reason. It doesn't make sense.

Just my ideas on the subject.

[ealdredaruspex]

In order to make a serious case for the man from Stratford, one must answer more than two dozen significant questions regarding his authorship. Despite centuries of research, traditional academia has been unable to do so. Any reasonable person goes back to question the original premise.

[Felysa]

Oh how much energy spent on this matter?! It drains me when I just think of some contradicting facts, not to mention the real evidence. Man, it's so messed up in the heads of people, yet so simple. Discard yourself of your core beliefs that are making you bias and you will see the great Truth so vividly. I wasn't able to sleep until I did that. Now, that I know..it's much easier to spend energy enjoying the masterful works. Peace and love to all ya out there, still thinking. Make that shift.

[CircoSalvona]

Hi! What's the music used in the video? Thanks in advance.

[bastianconrad]

OK! 75 .- Come on CMC! There is no proof that Davenant wrote the "Shakespeare eulogy" in 1618 (in his 11th year of Life"). The eulogy was First printed in "Madagascar" 1638, did you ever had some thoughts who Endimion (Porter) might have really, a Shepherd (Poet) brought into an eternal sleep at his 30th year of life....Identical to Marlowe...think about the Title Lines....of Madagascar....

[Пётр-дх]

Just the facts or the mystery of Belvoir Castle.
1) William Pembroke published Shakespeare's Sonnets in 1609. (The sonnet book is dedicated to him)
2) William Pembroke published the first collected works of Shakespeare in 1623. (The book is dedicated to him)
3) William Pembroke is Elizabeth Sidney's brother.
4) Elizabeth Sidney, 1584-1612, wife of Roger Manners, 1576-1612. (Do the dates of death match?)
5) Elizabeth Sidney is the dark-skinned lady from Shakespeare's sonnets. (Father dark-skinned Philip Sidney)
6) The Earl of Southampton is a friend of Roger Manners and the second person in Shakespeare's sonnets. (Rutland dedicated the book to Southampton)
7) The facts say Shakespeare is Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland.
8) Hamlet" is to Queen Mother Elizabeth for the execution of the British Marshal Earl of Essex in 1601.
9) Roger Manners with a diplomatic mission in Elsinore, Denmark. Hamlet was rewritten in 1604.
10) The poem Troilus and Cressida is a reflection of the relationship between Roger Manners and Elizabeth Sidney.
11) John Manners, 4th Earl of Rutland, Roger Manners' father had 10 children.
12) The stones of Belvoir Castle are silent.

[bastianconrad]

Ok CMC, ...lets drop the whole thing,  I realize its not enough fun ( to both of us..).

[bastianconrad]

OK .- 47 i was putting a question, only....you seem to be the expert, giving your fundamental answers...the moist soil under Trinity Church is moist....Absolutley Great! Where do you know..?.And so on!

[frae]

"Never ending", absolutely!

[bastianconrad]

OK!:- 63.-Come on! CMC; ...or remain gullible (dupable?). - as you know, "Goods and chattels" are defined by Shakespeare in "Taming of the shrew" (III/2) as " household stuff, my field, my barn, my horse, my ox, my ass, my

[scotty]

I do like the way stratfordian bobble-heads take the name Shakespeare when the grasping grainhorder only had the name used in that way something like once. He wasn't 'Shakespeare' or 'Shake-speare' he was shaksper or whatever and was never a writer, didn't travel, never owned a book probably illiterate

[bastianconrad]

OK! 78.- CMC, as you well know, chief adviser of Queen Elisabeth William Cecil, Master of the Court of Royal Wards, had full control of supervising the raising and education of His ward Henry Wriothesley, and thus of any connections between Cecil and Marlowe are robust....-it doesn't need Henry at that explains it

[bastianconrad]

OK! Lets start ! 32, 33, 34. I Suppose, you are right, it wasn' Shakespeare from Stratford! i put a question only....But WHO was Jonsons famous man and author with no Identity? :....give me your best and plausible answer, ...At least!Did you read the Play Coriolanus? Did you notice, that Caius Martius (Strange! Same initials like Christopher Marlowe) had to accept a new Name Coriolanus, which he didn't estimate at all! Move on!

[bastianconrad]

Nein dieser BBC rundfunkbeitrag ist in jeder Hinsicht obsolet.- aber historisch interessant.Dank für den kommt nicht einmal vor....

[brucerobbins]

Diggs used a hyphen, but Johnson, five times wrote "Shakespeare" Does anybody really thing they were writing about different people? Diggs sometimes did call him "old baldiy".

As can be seen, his name was spelled differently witrhn 4 words.

Hemings and Condell were given 10% of the Earnings of the Globe for a reason. They were the managers. Took care of booking, were accountants, were responsible for picing up the earnings. VIPs in other words. They must have been good fiends of William Shakespeare. It seems that when he finished a scene, he gave it to them to be put into Fair Copy form. They knew not only him, they knew his handwriting.

There is has come conjecture that they were helped by Johnson, but this has not been proven. Maybe they wrote a first draft and Johnson corrected it. That makes sense, as Johnson knew nothing about how the troupe worked.


Sure Hemings and Condell were making a sales pitch. There was little hope that the Folio would make a profit. But their tender words about Shakespeare seem real, not the work of a fake.

Wills are to leave belonging to the family, not to friends, and that is what Shakespeare did. He second family in London, he left to the most beloved, Burbage, Hemings and Condell. Little did he know that Hemings and Condell would be responsible for one half of his plays not being forgotten!!!

We know plenty about the Will. Read a book on it.

[Meine.Postma]

Because this is about Shakespeare, the text of this video should be in better English. Also, if there is only written text and pictures why make a video?

[colinmcd]

I thought it was the Stratford man until Point 14 when the question about why his head is shaded a certain way in a book that came out decades after he died... at that stage I knew the game was up. I simply cannot answer the question. Even although the question is moronic and by question 14 I was down at that level... but still. You've made a believer out of me, fella, good work.

[jaybee]

Instead of trying to concentrate on justifying Wm Shakespeare or not, why not better look at the more likely candidates who fit the bill better in time and place, talent etc since there is not the slightest evidence that points to Wm. Shakespeare as a writer, other than his name on some of the plays and poems, often placed on later editions and often spelt differently, and so indicative of later manipulation of the iconic Pallas Athene Shake Speare of knowledge to fit a particular person at a later date.
Francis Bacon has recently come back into fashion as he does fit the bill and in my new novel The Royal Secret it becomes very clear why he would have needed to conceal his name, which de Vere and Marlowe and a host of others had no reason to do. This reasoning seems to be largely missed by most. see www.theroyalsecret.info

[bastianconrad]

Thanks Ron (Mr.Oxfordian)
For your interest . Unfortunately, your scrutinity doesn’t convince me ..-.
Whom do you mean specifically wih the “Crown”. You should from the very beginning call the child by its name.. It was of course William Cecil, Lord Burghley. He was not the kind of man to let an ovverpowering genius (the only one!!) thoughtless killed,
There are abundant mighty and numerous arguments for Marlowe (some 2000) that it makes no real sense to accept a single (! zero +1) poor argument that M was killed, or Cecil wanted him killed. reflect the chain of a few 100 arguments (link) , at least, and how you would refute them


P.S: There could be infinitely be more to say about your argumentation but I am fully aware (also for me), that after a certain age impregnations of beliefs are no longer easily erased. Such efforts to try to change someone’s belief are wasted time. needs new generations....your image and knowledge of Marlowe ("troublesome", "unprolific", "controversial" WOW!!!) seems to be an impressive caricature of the reality. You do not seem to ever have read Dr Faustus, Edward II, Hero & Leander etc. etc....what a shame)

[brucerobbins]

WHY all these riduculous, unanswerable question? That explain nothing. Yes, we need questions. They help us learn. But we need the RIGHT questions. These are irrelevant.