Part 59 - Edward de Vere and Francis Bacon printed their names at the beginning of Shakespeare's first two published works, 'Venus and Adonis' and 'Lucrece.'
Great video. I definitely agree that that it's best when Baconians and Oxfordians work together & keep in contact, my sense is both camps are approaching the truth of this matter from differing angles.
I think a lot of the deaths going on at the moment are to do with all of this the dark side are trying to stop what is about to happen I think these men had the secret hidden knowledge like tesla
I think it best when Baconians expose the errors of Oxfordians. Since Bacon did not work with DeVere in their lifetime why should it be different now? sirbacon.org/downloads/aphoenix/LOONEY.pdf
Finally! It has seemed obvious to me for some time, that when different people using almost the same methods keep coming up with both names it means both were involved. It would make much more sense that there were multiple people considering the volume of work. It is time that the two sides start working together as these two authors did. Who knows you may find out that there are even more involved. Great job!
Surely if The Oxfordians and The Baconians were to combine their energies and minds - finally the woeful leaky and rather pitiful ship that The Stratfordians continue to sail, can be sunk for good. Then we can build from there.
Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth was busy being Robert Cecil, and the Earl of Essex was camping it up as Arbella Stuart, who was actually Christopher Marlowe pretending to be Francis Walsingham. Nobody fancied being Shakespeare so Shakespeare was stuck with that role for good.
I feel the exact same as you do - this video scratches the surface of these men’s contributions - but undoubtedly they were exactly as you show here. Brilliant work John.
Thanks. I don't know if the relationship was one where Bacon would have ideas and de Vere would know how to weave them into the poems and plays, or if they both knew how to write "Shakespeare," but I think there's more than one great mind at work here.
@@johnanthony8653 Fully agreed. I feel Bacon was more black and white in some ways but had something to offer no doubt - but de Vere seems so much more on the right side of the brain - the creative side - and Bacon more left side - both men pure brilliance.
A good person to ask and certainly knowledge in this area, might be Alexander Waugh. You can tell he absolutely and honestly loves to discover these hidden gems and seems willing to work with others. He credits others findings often in his own videos. It's just an idea, that if you're stumped on something and it genuinely seems to be significant, it couldn't hurt to send an email or something along those lines. You definitely seem to have some good ideas and you never know what they could lead to. John Dee, Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon and their contemporaries, were simply genius and incredibly imaginative. It would be nice if folks let go of their emotional attachments, to one camp or the other and collaborate more often. I'd say it's very likely both could have contributed to these works. At the very least, worth considering the possibility. Great video.
If the 6-2-4 cipher in the Sonnets Dedication Page text -- and/or the 19-grid messages Waugh has discovered -- are any indication, then the "ever-living poet" (singular) is Edward de Vere, and him only. I don't see the names 'Francis' or 'Bacon' lurking there. Oh, he was probably "in the know" about Oxford's pseudonymous poetry and play-penning, but I don't think De Vere needed anybody to help him write his works. If certain plays were left unfinished after 24 June 1604, then perhaps those plays were 'finished' by a posthumous collaborator, and MAYBE Francis Bacon had a hand in those. But I'm not convinced that LVCRECE's initial lines must be an acrostic -- though I can see how some folks might get excited by it, yet that Lambda/Alpha switcheroo business seems a stretch to me. Maybe if the capital 'L' just happened to have a horizontal dash 'accidentally' positioned through it or beside it . . .
That's why understanding the shapes of letters is important. I wanted to keep the video short, so I didn't include another example in the Folio where Bacon's name is spelled out with the usual Latin (English) letters, BACO, but ends with the letter 'A.' I've shown it before in an earlier video. The thing is, in Hebrew, A/Aleph looks like a Latin letter 'N.' Again, Hebrew is one of the Alphabets of the Three Primary Languages. Once that 'A' is read as 'N,' another Bacon and de Vere acrostic opens up. If we saw the name BACON with the 'A' printed as a chevron (B^CON), and no middle line anywhere around it, we would still assume it stood for a letter 'A.'
Willow branches, wicker, were also used in areas where palms do not grow. Palm fronds and willow branches are associated with Jesus. BTW - I look forward to viewing and learning from each and everyone of your marvelous videos.
I may be stretching things, but could vaia mean both to go and bay? "Could it be," as in Mahone Bay or as discovered by Roberts, "Bayes de la Toutes Illes" in French, or "Baye of Many Isles?" Through a series of logical steps, Robert used the 1612 Samuel de Champlain's (Bacon claimed was his best alias) chart which mentions "ille aus lou marains," or "Isle of Sea Lions." This was a moniker for the navy and privateers of the Netherlands. There were times that the English joined the Dutch to fight Spain. Drake, Bacon (secretly an accomplished navigator, Captain, and mapmaker), and Sir Walter Raleigh posed as Dutch privateers. Using calipers and clues left by Bacon, Roberts identified it as our favorite island in Nova Scotia Canada, Oak Island. TT is Bacon. Great work, John!
I gotta say, I think de Vere was T T and 4T, and Bacon (and/or the Rosy Cross) was T T T. I found something in The Tempest that reads like message from one to the other, using T T and T T T. Or, it could be that Bacon is T T and de Vere TTT and 4T. And, as crazy as it sounds, T T might be both de Vere AND Bacon as the Twin Tudors. I'll explain it eventually. Regarding VAIA and the word "bay," I don't know. I was unable to find out if it meant bay laurel in the late 16th century. If it did, then I think it's referring to the bay laurel crown. Interestingly, someone suggested that the EVHRH acrostic (or EVERE in Greek) also spells: EV His Royal Highness. Kind of fits with the whole business of Oxford being a King of some kind. If it's a message to "go to...bay", I'd imagine we'd have to find a name of the bay on the same page...
And it's one of 17 Sonnets that begins with 'VV.' Something I haven't seen anyone point out is that the word isn't "tell" but "fel." I know it gets reprinted in modern editions as "tell" but look at a facsimile. It's not a 't' but an 'f.' According to the OED, in Old English, "fel" is a variant of "fall," "feel," and "fele." I wonder what, exactly, Oxford is saying there. Like I've said, if I have to give the name "William Shakespeare" to any one person, it's Edward de Vere. However, I do believe Francis Bacon was involved and I'm currently working on another video showing how we find references to the both of them in the Droeshout as well as the famous second page of 'The Tempest.' There's something going on with....how can I put this...the Two of them, as if they're Gemini or Twins, and Bacon is the second. Anyway, that's where I'm at with everything.
@@johnanthony8653 It's not FEL. It could be SEL but it's probably TEL 1) The word TEL is repeated in the final line of the sonnet: "So my love is still TELLING what is TOLD." Tel(l), Telling, Told 2) SEL is hinted at in line 12 "spending again what is already spent" Sell - spend...? Perhaps the word is intentionally mutilated to draw attention to the line itself, which contains an anagram for Edward Vere. That EVERY WORD doth almost tel my name "every word" = Edwor Ver Y (an anagram that "almost" tells the authors name) The grid solution My Name is De Vere would not be possible if the word were spelled correctly.
imagine these guys were challenging eachother with ciphers for fun? or Practice? The notes found in Durham(?) where a noble was trying to figure out the clues, seems like a game amongst the educated elite. Fun to think about.
Could be. I found something in the Folio that reads like one is addressing the other, saying farewell. When we look at everything the Oxfordians and Baconians point out, it just seems like the two were a part of the project, and I'm getting the impression that 'T. T.' (and 4T) was definitely Oxford and 'T T T' was either Bacon or the Rosy Cross.
So good to find a video like this. I have had brief contact with Alexander Waugh and Petter Amundsen and they both seemed uninterested in the other camp. That I do not understand, as both are making the same appeal to the layperson- which is to recognise the reality of the numerous convincing ciphers. That being said, if I remember correctly Waugh mentioned something about a scriptorium and Petter does think the authorship is multiple- i.e. Bacon, Neville and Stanley. So a preliminary guess of mine would be two major writers (Bacon, Oxford) and some other team members with all of them being nobility and some sort of Masonic order. I wouldn't expect this theory to go mainstream any time soon, any more than the Pentagon will tell what they know about UFOs, but it's a fun rabbit hole.
Thanks for checking out the video. I've posted others following this one showing more examples of de Vere and Bacon together, as well as pointing out the Rosicrucian clues in the 1611 King James Bible.
I really thought so that the true William Shakespeare are more than one person and Edward De Vere and Francis Bacon are my best candidate. Glad to know I'm not the only one thinking it. Excellent explanation 👏👏👏👏
I'm sure you've heard the expression, "Calling a spade a spade," which means to call someone by their true name. If you look at the First Folio's Droeshout portrait of Shaksper, notice how his collar and buttons are in the shape of a SPADE. I posted a video showing how the number 1740 is concealed within the spade-shaped collar and buttons. Basically, we're being told that the TRUE NAME of William Shakespeare is: 1740. Now here's the thing: Alexander Waugh has posited that 1740 is a number/cipher that pertains to Edward de Vere, and I've always agreed. However, as time has gone on, I think it's also a number pertaining to the Rosie Cross. So, does the Droeshout tell us that Shakespeare's True Name is Edward de Vere, or that it's a project of more than one person, namely, the Fraternity of the Rosie Cross? This would include de Vere, Bacon, and others. If you're interested, here's the video link about the portrait, which also includes an interesting 1740-Oxford code on page 17, line 40 of 'The Tempest': ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FPXprDg4ZFg.html
@@johnanthony8653very interesting. I totally agree with you 💯. I do William Shakespeare is a group of intellectual people who have the same agenda. De vere, bacon and company.
@@johnanthony8653A group of intellectual people contribute manuscript each for different plays and then they combine it and invented William Shakespeare and associated all those playwright with one person.
Thanks. I know some people think Elizabeth had children, and that Bacon and de Vere were two of them. I really don't know, though. I will say that I think she had at least one child, Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton, and I found a message on a portrait of his that tells us he was a Tudor and a king.
This is another superb video in your series. Things are beginning to fit like gears in an immense watch. Your discovery of the acrostics is amazing and seems to work. I have the feeling that cryptic allusions to Bacon do not necessarily mean he was contributing to the canon as a writer, but an allusion to him and de Vere being co-leaders in the 22 brethren which became known as the Rosicrucians. You refer to this at 4:53. I believe Bacon was a silent partner in the Shakespeare project. His writing amount to more than 15 large volumes, so I doubt he had any time to write plays or poetry of the sophistication in the works of de Vere. He seemed to be much more interested in the natural sciences, law, and philosophy as his writing shows. At 3"41 you state that the FRBA/L acrostic is "Francis Bacon". To play devil's advocate here, could the BA be someone else? I would need to see some sort of hint somewhere that you have to change the A to the Greek lambda and cannot see it. If you look at the first page of Lucrece, notice there are 8 upper-case V's in the second stanza with a value of 40 in Roman numerals. If you add the homophone "to"/two to that number you have 42 which in the Latin Alphabet Repeated Count is equal to TT. Going by the same H equals E method as before, the HT directly above this acrostic would mean "et" or "and". That means the book was helped along by TT (or god) once again and de Vere. Clever chaps, these were. At 5:09 you mention that the book Lucrece was published around 40 years before the RC formally announced themselves. I have the feeling Dee's Monas Hieroglyphica was the "Ur text" of the fraternity and it was published in 1560 or thereabouts. I believe that TT means "triple tau", so your hypothesis at 8:13 that de Vere was crowned with the bay laurel may be incorrect. Just putting it out that perhaps de Vere's title in the RC was "Majesty" or also "Magistrate". Line 13 of the First Folio letter To the Reader calls him a "Magistrate of wit" who arranged plays - in other words wrote and produced them - daily. You mention at 8:27 de Vere was called "King of poets" Hugh Holland calls him "Poet's King" in his poem from the First Folio on line eight of that sonnet. So "majesty" probably refers to de Vere as a poet rather than an actual heir to the English throne. Here is my thought on the "SA" beneath de Vere's acronym in the first page to Venus and Adonis (8:58): could it mean "semper alpha" or "always (number) one"? Just a thought.
It all depends on how the acrostic is meant to be read. Do we read just the first stanza? Or, the outside lines along the left margin? I'm not sure. I couldn't find out if VAIA meant "bay laurel" in the late 16th century. It meant "bay," but I don't know if it meant "bay laurel" likes it does today. Someone else pointed out that EVHRH can also stand for 'Edward Vere His Royal Highness.' Another allusion to whatever kind of "king" Oxford was? As you know, I'm convinced Wriothesley was Elizabeth's son. Was de Vere the father? Sometimes I think he was, other times, I don't know. Whatever the case, I'm less convinced that de Vere was also a son of Elizabeth's. King of Poets, King for fathering a Royal son, a Rosicrucian King of some kind...I simply do not know. But references to his being a King is something that I keep finding over and over again. The first Shakespeare poems were published around 20 years before 'Fama Fraternitatis.' What was Bacon's role in them? Not sure. I suggested to someone that maybe Bacon had ideas that Oxford was able write and incorporate into his work. They were both brilliant, but maybe only one of them knew how to really express it. It's like I said, if I have to give the name William Shakespeare to anyone, it's Edward de Vere. But I think Bacon was a significant enough player (in whatever his role) that his name was included at the start of 'Lucrece' (AFTER God and de Vere's, of course).
@@johnanthony8653 After I watched this video I was struck by the fact that we can read "Mr. W. H." from the dedication of the 1609 quarto backwards as "ehta/H" and W/double V. The "Mr." would then read backwards as gematria values as 17 for the r and the M would transpose to the number 40 using Hebrew and Greek gematria. In this instance, we consistently read the entire name and title backwards. Does this solve the identity of "W. H." for good? I certainly think so.
i haven't really watched any other videos about this so you've probably already thought of this, but could the double V also be seen in the double L lambda? another idea i had was to do frequency analysis of the compound intials - like how often does TT pop up compared to what would be expected. would be really interesting to see and also some solid statistical proof
One of the reasons we believe 'V V' stands for "de Vere" is because there's an example of Edward de Vere signing his name 'Double V.' There are other reasons but it would take a lot of typing to detail here. Alexander Waugh covers them in his videos. I have thought about 'L L' possibly standing for 'Twice 11' because of the Gematria value of 'L' equaling 11.
It would be the same with the Latin Alphabet: S = 18, A = 1. The thing is, what is the clue to subtract the 1 from the 18? With Roman Numerals, when a number of lesser value is to the left of a number of greater value, it's subtracted. But that's not what's here. Is there anything there that helps us to know to subtract the 1 from the 18?
@@johnanthony8653yep I also thought about that there is not justification for the subtraction but it seems too complete my guess would be that something is hidden there that justifies switching S and A so that subtraction would be possible.
He wasnt saying he was king of poets, but reveals a relationship between devere and queen elizabeth. Should he be king, "To be or not to be' the king and marry elizabeth. But here chastity is what held back an invasion by the spanish, so their relationship was kept secret. This is the quandry played out in the plays and sonnets of Shakspeare (pseudonym).
I've wondered if de Vere believed he would've been a king because he fathered Henry Wriothesley. I've shown in other videos that the 'Two Henries' portrait of Wriothesley and Henry de Vere spells out that Wriothesley was a king and a Tudor, and the 18th Earl of Oxford. I've also shown that the 1611 KJV dedication conceals a dedication to Elizabeth from "The Father of Her Majesites Sion," and it's signed by Oxford. Page 17 of the Genealogies is Judah, the father of Jesus' Royal Line, and page 18 is "Henroz," which seems like a hint at the name Henry ROSE(ley) to me. I'm working on a video now showing how the Sonnets tell us that Wriothesley was de Vere's son and a king. It's a series of messages that end with him being crowned as HR 9, Henry Rex IX.
Two halves of the Orphic egg? The Divine twins - Castor and Pollux - one earthly looking up at heaven; one heavenly looking kindly upon earth? Actually surmise that it is more than this and perhaps a Rosicrucian Ennead?
I believe Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton, was Elizabeth's son. That, or there was a small group of people who believed it. On the 'Two Most Noble Henries' portrait of Wriothesley and Henry de Vere, I found "Rex" (or possibly "Rey") etched in his crown over a Roman numeral IX, which would've been his regnal number as the grandson of Henry VIII. I found a message hidden within his banner and crown markings that reads, "King Henry Son of Tudor." Other messages on it also tell us that the 18th Earl of Oxford was illegitimate and that Wriothesley was his father. As far as Edward de Vere and Francis Bacon being sons of Elizabeth...I don't know. But the Rosicrucians believed Wriothesley was one.
Shakespeare grave stone is located in a church in Stratford, this stone is called the Holy of hollies, in Hebrew De Vere has two meanings "Words" Dabar and "Holy of hollies" הַדְּבִיר had-Dəḇir,. Also he died June 24th 1604, see the code? June is the sixth month-Edward(6 letters), De(2) and Vere(4) -6:24.William Shakespeare was baptised on April 26 1564 at Holy Trinity in Stratford which is the reverse of 6:24. The mirror image reflection of the real writer and the fake ghost writer.
I believe that one person was Edward de Vere, but Francis Bacon contributed SOMETHING. I also think he was responsible for getting the unfinished works completed.
@@johnanthony8653 Two big problems with that: 1.) He died in 1604, long before much of the Shakespeare work was written. 2.) He did publish some things in his own name, but those things have largely been lost to history as they didn't hold a candle to anything by "Shakespeare" - where's the logic in only signing your own name on stuff that was subpar?
Much of the Shakespeare work was written after 1604? I think you should check the timeline on that. By my count, 24 plays were written prior to 1604. If you include 'Othello' and 'Measure for Measure,' both performed in 1604, that means 26 plays (the vast majority) were written by the year of Oxford's death. There may have even been more ('Timon of Athens' and 'All's Well That Ends Well'). That would be 28 plays before Oxford died. Here's a link to the timeline: www.rsc.org.uk/shakespeares-plays/histories-timeline/timeline And that doesn't include 'Venus and Adonis' (1593) or 'Lucrece' (1594). The Sonnets weren't meant for publication, and were written years before 1609. So the first big problem isn't one. To answer the second big problem: An artist hones their craft. I'll refer to the praise Oxford's contemporaries gave him for his writing. They also concealed in other works that he was William Shakespeare. Please see Alexander Waugh's videos for a list of contemporaries who knew.@@scottrc5391
@@johnanthony8653 Some 12 plays were written after 1604, including Macbeth (1606) and much later, Henry VIII (1613). Of course it can be argued these were written by someone else, but then we get into the original problem I spoke of which is that stylographic analysis done with computers has shown with reasonable certainty they were all written by the same one person. Your idea that Oxford concealed his other work doesn't make much sense. Why, if he had work of equal caliber to that written under a pseudonym, would he not claim it? As far as I've heard, his "other" work was completely forgettable. Why the conspiracy to only publish his "good" stuff under a pseudonym? If he was trying to be forgotten to history, he was successful. He doesn't deserve credit for something if he truly went to such a successful length to concealing it. And furthermore, if so many people knew of his authorship, what was the point? If anything he wrote was scandalous and he needed to disclaim it, surely the authorities weren't so dense that they couldn't figure out who the author was, were it in fact him. Again, makes no sense. I am familiar with Alexander Waugh and seen him in debates but he still hasn't produced the "smoking gun" so to speak.
The evidence pointing to de Vere is astonomical but I cant disregard what was told by a spiritual teacher and akashic reader in 1980 in one of his classes He said Bacon and Marlow wrote the works with a group of people contributing. And it took place in that old house Bacon used.
I'm working on a kind of follow-up to this video. It seems to me that Bacon was "TwO" and Oxford his "Twin." At least, that's what it says on the famous Page 2 of 'The Tempest' and in the Droeshout portait. Hope to have it posted soon...
@@johnanthony8653 Nice! I still see 1. Bacon as Liz son especially the way Liz doted on him and his father? leaving him out of will etc. 2. Essex as her other son as the two men were so close and both involved in succession and Liz not getting over executing her own son who always acted entitled to me. 3. Marlow's strange life and death. And other akashic readers say it was a group. So are the Oxfordians stuck in arrested research development??
The son I'm confident Elizabeth had was Henry Wriothesley. I've posted videos about the 'Two Henries' portrait (of Wriothesley and Henry de Vere) that explains this. Were there more sons? I really don't know. Exactly what Bacon (or any others) contributed to "Shakespeare" while Oxford was alive, I couldn't say, but he was probably responsible for getting the unfinished works completed. I know Marlowe would've been dead by that point (unless those rumors about him faking his death are true), but I could definitely see others contributing at that time. @@AlannahRyane
@@johnanthony8653 yes i agree about Henry too lol she might have had 3 sons... who knows the lengths they all went to hide the truth in plain site... man we need a confession to suddenly appear
I kind of had something similar in mind. Genesis 1:3 is a three-part message: "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. "And God said" is God, obviously. "Let there be light" is de Vere, the Light Bringer. "And there was light" is the Rosy Cross brotherhood who illuminates the world. Since Francis Bacon was the leader of the Rosicrucians, does 'God, Vere, and Rosy Cross' also mean 'God, Vere, and Francis Bacon' ?
Concerning the SA, allow me to open up another rabbit hole. The author of "Daiphantus, or the Passions of Love" which refers to Hamlet by William Shakespeare was authored by "An. Sc.". Originally identified as Anthony Scoloker this was later refuted since Scoloker died in 1593 while Hamlet was written between 1599 and 1601. There are many similarities between this work and Hamlet. Could "An. Sc." stand for "Anonymous Scribe"? Or was the identity of Anthony Scoloker used by someone as a pseudonym to hide his identity, even to comment or correct misinterpretations of his other work of 1603 in 1604?
Since the letters are being read downwards, wouldn't it need to be printed as 'AS' for "Anonymous Scribe" rather than 'SA'? Or are there any examples where it appears as "Scribe Anonymous"? Your suggestion has got me thinking about something I hadn't considered looking out for before. In Latin, "anonymous" is Sine Nomine. I'll keep an eye out for 'SN.'
@@johnanthony8653 There aren't any historical examples of "Scribe Anonymous". Concerning Latin: SA in Roman inscriptions always means "Sacrum" - meaning holy. In bibliography SA stands for "Sine Anno" indicating the date is unknown. Relating to esotericism it could stand for: Société Angéligue or Societas Angeli.
@@anonymous-rj6ok Hm. 'Societas Angelique' is an interesting option. I wondered if there was any connection between them and the Rosicrucians and found this: "...more interestingly still, the Angelic Society maintained close links with the "official" Rose-Croix..." It's from an article in French but translates online. Here's the link: nauvoolodge.blog4ever.com/la-societe-des-angeliques Thanks for the suggestion.
@@johnanthony8653 There's an interesting link worth looking into. The Hypnerotomachia Poliphilii was "the bible" to the Angelic Society (SA) - in the sense of encryption of secret messages using cryptography and symbolism. It contains a stenographic cryptogram revealing the author. The link to Shakespeare in all this is the fact Ben Jonson owned a copy of the 1545 translation of this book which he annotated. Furthermore, Shakespeare's Midsummer Night’s Dream is clearly influenced by the Hypnerotomachia Poliphilii. If you need sources let me know but you can find a lot yourself by just googling the keywords I stated here. Also to be noted, the HP was very influential to Rabelais who was explicitly accused of being a member of the Angelic Society/SA (by Guillaume Postel and Antoine Fumée). Not to mention the HP was first published in Venice with a Venetian author. Edward de Vere visited Venice as you know. SA - HP - Encrypted Authorship - Venice - De Vere. It does seem to tick a lot of boxes. The HP is the first ever printed text with an encrypted secret author (acrostic). The HP also shows strange arrangements of the text like the inverted pyramid shape we also find in the Sonnets. The HP used neologisms just like Shakespeares work added words to the English language. In my mind there is not a doubt whoever was involved with the writing, editing and publishing of Shakespeares works - they very familiar with the HP and likely the AS. On the connection between AS and Rosicrucians I'm not sure. It's often disputed the Rosicrucians existed at this point in time. But it could well be the progenitor of it or a proto-rosicrucian order.
What rubbish. Talk about arriving at a conclusion and then torturing historical documents to support the answer you want to justify. Totally unscientific and a waste of time.
Using the methods Dee explains in 'Monas Hieroglyphica,' the same information keeps turning up. Repeating this process, and getting the same results over and over, is about as scientific as I can get. The only torture going on here is me having to type this out, so don't bother responding because now you're only wasting MY time.
You're wasting my time. All the things that have been decoded saying that de Vere was the author...? Bacon himself said he was no poet. The cumulative contemp evidence that no earl who has fought duels in teh streets w/his mistresses faimly would let someone else dramatize it. That's particularly stupid and an easy way to get challenged to a duel. During his lifetime I only see the doer of these deeds as actually writing about them. Oxford was one of the highest peers and I'm sure that he could have had may cut from the ton.
"All the things that have been decoded saying that de Vere was the author...?" I see. And I suppose all of the things that have been decoded saying that Francis Bacon was the author don't count. Now you're wasting MY time.
