Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Kate

  1. Yes, it’s scary how much it says that sounds beyond dispute but is utter tosh! 😬 Re all the above posts for anyone still unsure, I can perhaps sum up the entire thread in one paragraph by asking you to consider this: If we know from records QE1 was coronated in Jan 1559 and Bacon (from his baptism record) was born in Jan 1560, why do we say Bacon was born in 1561 but don’t shift the year and say the Queen’s coronation was 1560?!
  2. Here is the list of dates for anyone doing research in the future. I posted the link earlier but this makes it all clearer/easier.
  3. 👍Yes Christie, the baptismal one is correct. The only real problem I can see this generates is in the astrology chart as anyone looking him up online will input 22 Jan 1561 but should input 1560. That’s not a concern for the vast majority though! The other area to be cautious about, in light of this deep dive, is that any dates given in books, plays, documents etc, written prior to the 1900s, should as you say, be double checked because this calendar chaos didn’t really begin to properly sort itself out until the late 1800s. Greece didn’t do the shift of dates until 1924!! Most were done by the 1800s though. It’s been really interesting researching it. One bit of advice to all though is don’t use Chat GPT or Claude on this subject! I got multiple errors and inconsistent answers returned over many day of asking different things, even if I corrected it or said ‘are you sure?’ it carried on churning out errors. 🤨
  4. Thanks Rob. I had this bright idea to settle the matter. There is no dispute that QE1 was coronated in January 1559, therefore as the New Year didn’t begin in that year either until March, we’d surely find the same discrepancy as with Bacon’s birthdate. Sure enough I found a letter in the National Archives written to her just over a month after the coronation and it says: The brackets are indicating that as this was prior to March the year would change to 1560 after that. It’s not saying the letter was actually written in 1560 as he signs it 1559. As we know for sure the Queen was coronated in 1559 then by extrapolation, as both events (Bacon’s birth and the coronation are before March), then saying Bacon was born in 1561 is NS (New Style - although not needed as NS hadn’t even been introduced by then) so he was actually born in 1560. Much of this is obviously done by historians to try and make historical records uniform and intelligible within our current system. Also without an industry standard every document might fall under a different rule). See here for example, I found this (which by the way is fascinating and repeatedly mentions Robert Dudley & trying to marry the Queen off to various people, plus other really interesting info about who she was fraternising with in 1559) https://folgerpedia.folger.edu/mediawiki/media/images_pedia_folgerpedia_mw/9/9c/ECDbD_1559.pdf This shows how confusion has set in - see the first paragraph. The whole year remains 1559 🤷🏻‍♀️ One last thing I would say is that, with a facsimile of the record showing that FB was born in 1560 OS, then the Queen, if his mother, must have been pregnant for most of the second half of this year (1559/1560) so read the entries with that in mind! It does show she was repeatedly indisposed.
  5. This minefield around dating things is getting very interesting now because I've been having a separate discussion with AP and he has very kindly provided me with a facsimile of the Baptismal Record of Francis Bacon. As you can see it is headed 1560 and Bacon's entry is in January at the bottom. The column is then continued on the right-hand side of the page (which is cut off so not shown) but you can see it moves from February to March. Three-quarters of the way into March (to indicate 25th) is notation of the year change to 1561. HIs birth is in the 1560 section. As indicated in the previous post above, it's not enough to just assume that everyone knows what they are doing when dating things or that we are looking at accurate records, so I did even more research. I already mentioned how up until 1582 and the change to the Gregorian calendar on 4th Oct, when people suddenly woke up to the 15th Oct overnight, we only had the old style OS calendar. I also mentioned how this Gregorian (NS) wasn't fully introduced into Britain until 1752 (when 2 September 1752 became 14 September 1752 overnight) making for an absolute nightmare if anyone is trying to date anything from that period of 1582-1752. In theory is should not present problems for anything much outside of those dates because it was OS before 1582, and after 1752 virtually everyone was on NS. Most people get round any uncertainty by mentioning both. However, AP alerted me to another issue as some people were apparently choosing to start the year at Jan 1. I searched the Church websites and discovered, https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/record-guides/old-parish-registers/change-in-calendar (copy and pasted here) this a) There are two significant and separate developments that affect dates in the Old Parish Registers (OPRs). The first was the adoption of 1 January as the first day of the year instead of 25 March. The second was the calendar reform which began in 1582 But also on that site b) The 1612 Shakespeare deeds were not double-dated, but if double dating has been used to record Bacon's birth then it'd be recorded as 1561 but, if not, he was born in 1560 - and it does seem from the above that there would be no need to double date 40 years prior to 1600 as the change hadn't even been instituted. For anyone who is interested in all this, I think we need to turn our minds and eyes to it be absolutely certain of correct dating. It also affects the dating of Shakespeare plays, which may shift the chronology by a year, that could affect other things too. It's also vital for astrology charts because when the calendar shifted on 4th Oct 1582 and everyone woke up to the next day being 15 Oct and the start of the Gregorian Calendar the sky didn't suddenly shift 11 days. If the Sun was at 20 Libra one day (or if you hate astrology call it 200 degrees of absolute longitude) then the next day it'll still be at 21 Libra or 201 degrees of absolute longitude, but the date on one's calendar had suddenly changed. Date changes are incorporated into the astrology software automatically nowadays. So if I bring up a chart on 4 Oct 1582 it will have OS next to it but on the 15 Oct 1582 it will suddenly say NS but you have to know the right year to input - 1560 0r 1561 - for a chart of Bacon. On the record we can see Bacon was born on Jan 22 because Baptism is 3 days after and also it's documented in many other places that it was 22 Jan. 1561 has been plumped for, but because this is before the new calendar switch over date of March (AND before 1600) it seems his birth was in 1560 and not yet 1561. Now, chatting with AP (who has been very patient with me) there appears to have been confusion by authors and lots of different methods of documentation dating by scholars, including some starting the year as 1 Jan. On top of all this any biographer or later author putting pen to paper in the 1800s, 1900s or beyond might start quoting OS and NS not knowing much about what happened a few centuries before in 1582, and the varying laws and dates of implementation. There is a really comprehensive list of date changeovers in each country here for dates after 1582 https://www.astrotheme.com/files/julian_calendar_gregorian_calendar.php#google_vignette Basically as long as you know if it's OS or NS problems don't arise unless the date is in Jan, Feb or March. I now need to find out if modern computer algorithms changed the date of the start of the year from March to January for that time period as a chart for 1560 will significantly change Francis Bacon's birthchart. This is his data of the current one most people use for 1561 and I am not sure of his birthtime, so used 7am. You can see in the red box how the computer makes all the calculations to Local Mean Time and the Equation of TIme, and how it shows old style (OS) calendar, etc. All the data in these programs comes from NASA Jet Propulsion Labs and they also use things called Julian days. Astrology calculations are more complicated than most realise. I will report back when I find out which is use and update this post as using correct astrology is important. Thanks again AP for all the info. Speaking of astrology I recently found an amazing resource from Cambridge University and it has records from the Dee family, the Jaggards, Countess of Pembroke https://casebooks.lib.cam.ac.uk/identified-entities/PERSON31601 and many many more. They were using a form of astrology called Horary. I even found Lady Verulam (Alice) enquiring if she was pregnant less than a year after Bacon's death. Anyone prepared to dig around in here for hours (you can search by name, location, question or even questions asked about them etc) could find something really important to the authorship question. For example, one could even search all the actors names in the FF etc. It's amazing. Here's the link: Cite this as: Lauren Kassell, Michael Hawkins, Robert Ralley, John Young, Joanne Edge, Janet Yvonne Martin-Portugues, and Natalie Kaoukji (eds.), The casebooks of Simon Forman and Richard Napier, 1596–1634: a digital edition, https://casebooks.lib.cam.ac.uk/search?name=verulam;name-type=name;smode=name-search, accessed 12 June 2024.
  6. We have these strange pronunciations in the UK. I see the author is from the Cockburn Port family which means his surname is pronounced Co’burn - just in case anyone talks about him on a podcast! https://francisbaconsociety.co.uk/the-society/past-members/
  7. Thanks Christie! I wonder if there are any implications that may arise from the Bolett-Mountjoy deposition coming after the Blackfriars Gatehouse purchase or in the general chronology? I don’t know enough about what Stratfordians say about his life at that juncture to know.
  8. It’s vitally important that we ascertain the correct dates for documents that contain the (supposed) signature of Shakespeare, if we are ever going to unravel the authorship question. Stumbling across a picture of a seal* with Shakespeare’s signature, which I originally posted, in full, in the ‘Shakespeare Book Withdrawn’ but have cropped here … ...has taken me off down a rabbit warren that could prove very important. *The book is from 1900. I follow a curator of Renaissance books from the Newberry Library online and I asked her in a DM, how common is it for big institutions to make a mistake in cataloguing and she said it is far more common than one might expect. So, the issue here is that the seal picture I found shows the date 1612. The only legal document Shakespeare signed that year was the Botlett-Mountjoy one. However. It transpires the 1900 picture is actually of the Blackfriars Gatehouse purchase and mortgage deeds. This is recorded as 11 March 1613. If you look at these on shakespearedocumented.folger.edu and zoom in, on the one document, you can faintly see the 1612, and on the other it spells out the year in writing and clearly ends in the word twelve. Therefore, as the seal picture very clearly shows, the documents are 1612. Some confusion arises as one says tenth (10) March and the other is apparently 11th but the dates are 1612. I did however find this: It agrees with my observation and says 1612! When I clicked on it it tries to explain the anomaly with 1613 by saying that it is a calendar issue. However, this cannot be. Here’s why. It’s complicated as one has to understand astronomy and recognise that the Equinox is not a fixed thing. Plus, there is a general conception that we all switched calendars to Gregorian (NS) in 1582. The Julian calendar (OS) did change in 1582 and one has to add 10 days to dates in the 1600s to get the NS date and be cautious as to which side of the equinox one is looking at. Is it Jan – March or March to Dec? However, it was not adopted in England, although it was used in many other countries, until 1752. Therefore, the date is Julian on the deeds. If we did want to change what is written and express it as NS we would add 10 days making March 21 1612. As a new astronomical and seasonal year begins at the equinox, which that year may have been earlier than 21st March, then that might just push it into 1613. However, a) that system was not used in 1612 in England for English documents and b) because of the complicated astronomy around the calendrical system the Equinox may have shifted but the date to make it uniform for the New Year was fixed for 25 March. (See image at bottom of this post). This means a document clearly stating a date of 10 or 11 March 1612 would remain as that and alongside it someone could in future years have put 'or New Style 21 March 1612'. To make it into 1613 and keep the day the same is an error. These institutions are not without error and that explains the plaque seen here, https://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/shakespeare-s-house-blackfriars but again it is incorrect. If the deed says 10 March 1612 and you have converted it to new style the day would change and the year would not be 1613. I am happy to retract this if anyone can prove I have made an error, but I think this comes from a wide misunderstanding of date changes and the fact that both 10 March and 11 March are noted online (I have only seen tenth on the document) has added to the confusion. What I suspect may well have happened is that once it was officially recorded as 1613 by the big institutions everyone just ran with it, and when other people noticed the discrepancy, they believed it must be due to calendar changes without actually understanding it or checking it for themselves. Why would this matter, it’s just a year error? Well although it is understandable as it is complicated and no one is immune to mistakes, and I am not casting aspersions on the Institutions or employees, it does means both signatures that we have on the Shakespeare deeds, Bolett-Mountjoy and Blackfriars are 1612, but Shakespeare's signatures are quite different. Also, as the Bolett-Mountjoy deposition one was signed 11 May 1612 this would come after the mortgage one in March 1612, not before. That’s a big deal. One has to wonder, what else have we taken for granted as it is being said by a big institution? Often these documents are not available to the general public to view so we rely on their authority. In this case the documents are available to view so you can check it for yourself using the zoom features. I suspect no one will want to think I am right and the Bodleian, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Folger, British Library and National Archives and City of London which are all listed, must agree with the 1613 one as those places are packed full of academics. However, is this a case of no one actually double checking the calendrical complexities, or perhaps of someone writing this out in the 1900s and it being too vast a thing to change everywhere centuries later, rather than any nefarious skulduggery? Sometimes a random person can come along and spot something no one else has seen, as the idea of needing to double check is not one most people would think of. If anyone is still in doubt (although the convertor above should confirm) See this. AI agrees that there is no way a document that actually states 10 or 11th March 1612 on it could become the same date but in 1613.
  9. Miquel (author of the book that started this topic) has recently used one of those AI translation services to narrate and translate his 1hr 42m video (of the presentation of his theory to an audience in Spain) from Catalan to English. I won’t share the link as it’s unlisted and needs to be done again as, unfortunately, the translation service is so bad it’s almost impossible to watch 😬but for anyone reading as a visitor to this site, here are just some of the parallels between Shakespeare and Don Quixote. These parallels are well known to us, and others are listed in the link to a guest post further up on ‘Quixote Parallels’. Basically, most of what Miquel covers is in the video by Aleix, linked to in the first post at the top of this thread. The author of Don Quixote and Shakespeare are one person. He thinks it’s Sirvent, we/I think it’s Bacon (or a maybe a Bacon workshop of “Good Pens”).
  10. I think it’s worthwhile checking out the seal. Who do these initials refer to?
  11. Nice spot, Yann! I was also thinking that, if returning to the Sirventes, Cervantes, servant poet wordplay, this ‘Court servants or courtiers and the tilting staff’ association below is intriguing. The staff is held by the bird.
  12. ⁉️ Don’t mark me out as a conspiracy theorist, but now wondering if it was withdrawn because it contains an image (or part of the text) that doesn’t match the accepted narrative. I can’t work this one out so have just publicly asked the Birthplace Trust and the National Archives and the Folger for more info. However, the chances of them replying to me are zero when they see I'm a Baconian! So, if I understand correctly, the Folger say the Belott-Mountjoy paperwork only came to light in 1909/1910 and they show this signature (via the National Archives) The signature in the red box is what I added. It was taken from the seal image below, and the book it is from, as you’ve seen, is dated a decade earlier, 1900. The signatures don’t match - we know none of Shakespeare’s do - but it has to be the Mountjoy case due to the date of 1612. A reverse search on the internet shows only 2 copies and neither have the writing shown above the signature, meaning this is the only picture online. Update: I have come back as I have discovered an explanation. I said it has to be the Mountjoy document as it says 1612. It turns out it’s not. It is an image from what is known as the Blackfriars document. I didn’t look at that though as the date given for it is 1613. It raises questions as to how the Shakespeare Folger library could get the date of an important document wrong. If you Google it, it says Will decided to buy the Blackfriars property with others in 1613. Sure enough, the image in the 1900 book I posted is of the left hand seal of the four with “William Shakespeare’s” signature. If you zoom - below- in the date could never be construed as a three (1613). It is clearly a 2 and says 1612. I have again put one superimposed below the other. The lighter one is the Shakespeare Birthplace/Folger image and says it’s (the whole image above, not this composite) from the British library. The obvious question then is, was stating 1613 just an easy error to make or did it have to be that year for some reason as to say 1612 might highlight an anomaly in the Shakespeare chronology? Does all this make sense. I’m having a hard time articulating it. What it boils down to is the image from the book I posted is real. The Shakespeare Trust/Folger or British Library (one of them or all) have made a mistake and are misreporting it, but it’s clear what the date is. So that’s a big mystery.
  13. I’m assuming the fact this book was withdrawn is just Librarian’s code for ‘it’s too old and beaten up now’ but it’s what attracted me to open it, and I’m so glad I did. https://archive.org/details/williamshakespea0000hami Eric, I think you might like this. It’s full of old illustrations/images in between the text. The book itself was written in 1900. Here is a selection, but there are a lot more.
  14. That is indeed very interesting Yann You see two heads are better than one, because I recall spending a long time looking for any heraldry that had gold/mustard with a black ‘bend sable’ (as they call it) which is why I was immediately struck by Miquel saying there were similarities. Now it’s weakened that somewhat, but the Cervantes/Aragon/Catalonia link is compelling too. My head is spinning! 😵‍💫 Thanks for this!
  15. This is an incredible output of work AP and I want to again acknowledge your tireless commitment to bringing the truth of Bacon firmly to the fore. I’m not sure why they’d encrypt something in a book without leaving a key or clue for people to know to look though. I can see why they might potentially do it on a plaque dedicated to someone who spent his time looking. Btw Did anyone ever decipher the last part of Kryptos, that I believe (from memory) is at Langley? That would have been a great place to conceal and reveal the “Bacon is Shakespeare”truth! Anyway, even if I’m not able to fully see the reasoning behind this one, keep on doing what you do (both of you) as it’s fascinating x
  16. Hi, Coincidentally, I’ve just been reading this morning that Alfred Von Weber-Ebenhof had challenged the authorship, so thank you for posting. I also learned that Isaac Asimov did (!) as did two academics one was the other Francisco Colero. Professor Emeritus and Professor of Classical Philology. I was sure I had read a paper by AP devoted to this subject (DQ), but I must be mistaken as I can’t find it. I know that if visitors to this site go to the topic of Don Quixote (as opposed to this thread within the topic) there are other threads with irrefutable parallels. The links between Aragon/Catalonia to Italy and therefore to England are impressive and intertwined, especially for those mystics and humanists who were trying to get around the burning of books instituted by Catholic King Philip (Felip)! Da Vinci had been strongly linked too, and another early influence who they all would have read was Raymond Llull who apparently would have written in Catalan as opposed to Spanish, as he came from Majorca. So there’s lots of opportunity to see or read words in Catalan as well as for Bacon to be very familiar with the people of that area. Remember too, if Bacon’s mother was QE1, as everyone here believes and I also suspect she was, then Catherine of Aragon’s relatives would be very familiar to QE1 and therefore to Bacon. And that’d be because Catherine was QE1’s Father’s first wife, not just because Bacon was a Statesman in her Court. We’d all know quite a bit about our parent’s ex spouse if they had one for many years and so would our children. There is a lot to unpack here that could eventually yield a hidden piece of evidence that links Bacon as author of both Shakespeare and Cervantes which would make a whole new audience sit up and take notice (i.e., those who are bored of the endless Shakespeare authorship speculation for centuries but interested in Cervantes!).
  17. Oh duh 🤦🏻‍♀️ I need to brush up on my history! There are indeed links That’s Queen Elizabeth 1st Bacon wrote about the history of Henri VII and had a chapter on Prince Arthur and Katherine (also spelt Catherine) of Aragon. “This chapter details the marriage of Arthur and Katherine in 1501 when they were teenagers, as part of an alliance between England and Spain. However, Arthur died in 1502 just a few months after the marriage at the age of 15. Bacon's account provides insight into the events surrounding this short-lived marriage, which had significant political implications as Katherine later went on to marry Arthur's younger brother, Henry VIII, after Arthur's death.” Married to Henry VIII, Katherine of Aragon became Queen of England until her death in 1536 when Anne Boleyn was already on the scene. Here’s Katherine's( born Catalina) history https://www.hrp.org.uk/hampton-court-palace/history-and-stories/katherine-of-aragon/#gs.ai3lr2 She was related to King Philip II of Spain (her Grandnephew) who was King until his death in 1598. In 1586 King Philip II nominated Bernardo de Sandoval y Rojas , uncle of Francisco, to be a Bishop and
  18. Get a cup of tea and settle in, this is turning into an epic, but someone may be interested in the following, now or in the future, so I’ll continue. First of all not everyone is going to be familiar with the Albado reference above, especially if they haven’t watched the video, so here’s why it’s relevant as it’s a Catalonian word I mentioned I’d been struck by the fact that the name Sirvent links to poets/troubadours and could perhaps be a pseudonym as Sirventes is a phonetic version of Cervantes. So I asked AI : it answers extensively so what follows are specific extracts of longer answers My next question was, which of the proposed authors of Shakespeare have links to that part of Spain? It’s answer included, Neville, Bacon, Marlowe, De Vere, and even mentioned William Stanley but concluded this! This surprised me as I did not prompt this answer: next question it gave a lengthy answer going through the candidates and their links. Amongst the answers it said: but then later said: It’s obviously going to keep repeating that it’s all speculative/unproven but, as you can see, all roads lead back to Bacon. I think what this video (in the first post of this topic) has done is found a link that (again) ties Bacon, Cervantes and Shakespeare together - see Quixote Parallels thread - but now via the coincidence of the Heraldry which was chosen for the Shakespeare coat of arms. Assuming Miquel Sirvent was either not a real person or had his name purloined by Bacon or even was linked to the Sandovals but assisted Bacon in someway then .. Bacon is Sirvent(e) is Cervantes is Shakespeare is Bacon! If anyone can think of another line of questioning/research to find ties of Bacon to Aragon/Catalonia or the Sandoval y Rojas family, please say. For example, did any of them have children or relatives who married into prominent families linked to Bacon? It’s no good me (or any of us) coming up with speculative links between Shakespeare and Bacon, there has to be ‘clinchers’ that are undeniable proof for anyone outside of this forum to put Bacon’s authorship of Shakespeare and Don Quixote on the front burner again. With Albada in the Promus and First Folio, plus the similar heraldry now linking to Catalonia, which links to Don Quixote, St George etc., it’s moving nearer thanks to the author Miquel Izquierdo I Peran. I guess lots more might be answered in the actual book as opposed to the video about it by Aleix. Btw, there was this about Bacon in one of the lengthier answers. AI can hallucinate so if anyone takes issue with anything it has answered, do say.
  19. The plot thickens because early Shakespeare designs were potentially going to be a double one - with the Arden family (?) See the design 34 here from the Heraldry records. Here’s the Sandoval y Rojas one for comparison. There was also this Which would have made the one on the right a little more similar to the Aragon one below (from which the Sandoval y Rojas one arose, prior to Shakespeare’s). The author also points out the coincidence of St George being the Patron Saint of Catalonia (and everyone’s death recorded as that day). There does seems to be some connection & Rosicrucian links going on here, but just what I don’t know. We do know Dee was very involved with the Spanish. 🧐 Then there is the word “Albada”. Again, it could all be pure coincidence. Just recording what I find. No more, no less.
  20. I’m putting up a new introduction here as I’ve been contributing to this forum since its inception and written a lot of posts. I’d like to ‘set out my stall’ not for other members who already know me, but for anyone browsing. Some of (not too many) my posts, I no longer agree with. Either because a) deeper research has led me to new info or new info has surfaced and b) because, with hindsight I see ideas I explored (although it was perhaps a necessary detour for me personally on the ‘Shakespeare authorship trail’) that I’d rather delete. To do so though would impact on the overall flow of threads, so I have left them up. There are two apt phrases that fit my ethos: “A wise man will change his mind, a fool never will.” Also, Aristotle apparently once said: "The mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought without accepting it." I love investigating and entertaining things that others may automatically dismiss. Too many people in life have shouted important things into the void. They have been dismissed because ‘the crowd’ were all following each other in the wrong direction or had chosen to listen to the most authoritative voice. Being openminded & contemplating/researching things for oneself is the pathway to truth. “And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music” - Friedrich Nietzsche (who thought Bacon was Shakespeare!) I stand by everything about Bacon that I point to in my book, and it is still my belief that Sir Francis Bacon was either the author of – or the Mastermind behind – the Rosicrucian First Folio attributed to Shakespeare. As a starter, one only has to read Manes Verulamiani or this excellent paper by A. Phoenix https://www.academia.edu/90586683/Great_and_Rare_Quotes_About_Francis_Bacon_and_The_Shakespeare_Works to know this. I’m primarily here to sift & sort and read other ideas. I’d love nothing more than to try and help see Bacon’s involvement confirmed in a way that even Stratfordians will have to accept (as I grew up in the area, and worked in Stratford upon Avon, I know first-hand what a big business it is). However, if some information that proves Bacon was not Shakespeare and not involved in the FF arises, so be it. There’s nothing worse than being rigid or dogmatic about beliefs. I avoid this type of competiveness (below)at all costs: Taken from https://sirbacon.org/overheard.htm I also want to say here for any visitor, that I do not believe in the Dr Orville Owen or Elizabeth Wells-Gallup theory of a long ‘confession’ hidden in cipher in the First Folio. Parts of what they say may be true, but I personally don’t think Bacon said those words or hid them in the FF. That is not to say that there is no cipher at all in the FF or to imply that I dismiss the theory that the Friedman’s were not telling the whole truth in their book Shakespeare Examined. It looks likely that they knew more than they were able to say, which is perhaps why they left the cipher on their gravestone in Arlington cemetery (there is evidence it’s there from Elizebeth Friedman’s own hand). The fact that the Friedman’s do not say in their book that they don’t think Bacon was Shakespeare (and even encourage Baconians to keep looking) is a very important point. I also think that number ciphers can be read in so many different ways, one has to be careful not to try and make things fit, and the same with acrostics, but it’s fun trying. The fact Bacon told us that this is how things are concealed (below) is all the proof one needs that forums like this are valuable for discourse, and for investigators to unearth things to the light that were once concealed. Thanks to Lawrence and Rob for hosting it. ❤️ PS. I have a sense of humour too. Don’t want the above to sound too serious or self-important!👩🏻‍💻 💃
  21. Apologies in advance that this will be lengthy, but I want to share the info. I was sent the video (Lawrence’s post), watched it and wasn’t sure what to think. It has proved to be a great example of the need to always try and sort wheat from chaff. “The mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought without accepting it." If you Google Joan Miquel (or Miguel) Sirvent (or Servent or Sirvant) - all these different spellings must be down to language differences - it leads to very little about this man, as does asking AI, but Google does lead to a slew of articles ridiculing this specific theory proposed in the video about Sirvent, which seems to have emerged around 2016. Many of the articles are in Spanish, but can easily be translated by pressing the URL bar drop down menu. I read a few, including an excoriating one in The Guardian (a British paper) and another seemingly scornful one in a Spanish newspaper called El Espanol. El Espanol Both point to an organisation called Institute Nova Historia or INH, which apparently is: ‘funded by the Catalan Autonomous Govt, and has received support from Catalan nationalist politicians.’ Link There is also a De Vere blog joining in the ridiculing. This points out the difficulties of using number ciphers and makes its point (I agree this is an issue with number cipher) by showing this: However, in the interests of balance, fairness, and being mindful of the way people and the press can trash & ridicule many theories or books that don't subscribe to accepted narratives, I did do a bit of independent digging. It is true that the coat of arms is originally from a mustard and black colour and predates the Shakespeare family one. I found this in the Spanish National Library. If you want to know how Aragon connects to the Sandoval y Rojas name and crest, Google Catalonia. This could, however, easily be coincidence. There are only a certain number of colours used in heraldry and these ‘bends’ are common. The shape of a shield is important too. So the premise is that the Sandovals funded Sirvent. I’m in conversation with the author but he doesn’t speak English so the exchanges are in Catalan via the magic of Google translate. One thing he said: “Bernardo de Sandoval, Royal Inquisitor, protector of the author of the works of Cervantes, was facing his nephew who was Francisco de Sandoval I Rojas. The valid of the king. Duke of Lerma and Marquis of Dénia. And Nicolas Anton, the first reference to Cervantes after his passing, in the 17th century itself, tells us that he wrote Don Quixote against Francisco de Sandoval, Duke of Lerma. And the fact is that the Dukes are the most named characters in Quixote after Quixote and Sancho himself. And in the middle we find that he arrives at his homeland when he sees the coasts of Dénia, that the Sandovals are the marquises of Dénia and that Shakespeare's coat of arms is like the Sandovals.” I’ll keep digging! PS. Was Sirvent perhaps a pseudonym too though. I ask because it’s a bit of a coincidence that the root of the name means someone who writes verses in metrical structure (I’m thinking of the sonnets when I say this). I’m not sold on all this so don’t shoot the messenger but I’m always happy to explore and investigate and not just follow the crowd. Sometimes, even if it’s a dead-end, it can unearth information, new thoughts or take you off down a route that eventually connects more dots. Life moves in mysterious ways.
  22. Ok, to save time in case anyone is on the trail, I’ve now answered my own question. The photo of the decipherment was indeed part of a selection of lessons from 1916 when she (Elizebeth) first joined. What she’s been given is not what she personally found. She’s just correctly transcribed the biliteral cipher she was presented with not deciphered the First Folio itself. All from box 15. Btw, the last one leaves me in zero doubt these are not Bacon's words.
  23. Thanks Sally! Seems to me that the whole crux of the matter (and divided opinions) is not whether Bacon wrote Shakespeare. Nor is it about whether Bacon was or wasn’t the son of QE1 (even in the mind of Friedman, who doesn’t dismiss the notion in his/their book, but appears to say it’s a distinct possibility, which btw is extremely odd - why even mention that if they want to hide that?) It’s about the use of cipher in the FF and other books Gallup looked at. This here though is what foxes me, and would undoubtedly fox any onlooker, whether Baconian or not. The quote in here from the top of the page is another from Elizebeth Friedman. In the red box you can see she says she “categorically” has never managed to form even a sentence, but in the picture AP posted she’s signed a deciphered part of the First Folio. So the next question of anyone who’s a critical thinker would be, is it a deciphered part of the FF? In other words, a)Are we sure she wasn’t just (perhaps in her first training days at Riverbank) following the a’s (-) and b(/) that had been provided to her under the modern typewritten letters. In other words, was this a practice piece to verify that she’d got the hang of deciphering things like - - - - - /- - - / - / - - - / - - -/- / / - /-/ -/ /- -/- -/ - -/ - -/ - - - -/-//- - / - -/ - - -/ They all used pencils, so can we be sure that she put the marks under the typewritten letters or did she just translate it from the a’s and b’s provided to her by Gallup? I ask because only by seeing a photo of the First Folio they got this from, and knowing for sure who presented the letters as a or b could we conclusively say the evidence shows she’s lying, and not just a white lie but, in her own words, “categorically”. Is the original photo of the FF I refer to in one of the Riverbank or her books? If it is, then anyone seeing it, Baconian or not, would want to pressure the NSA to explain the monumental discrepancy between her words in the book they sanctioned and the page with her signature on it.
  24. Thanks for your words, AP. ❤️ We are definitely in agreement that William and Elizebeth likely knew more than they were letting on. It’s great that we have this platform to weigh and sift different pieces of information and viewpoints, to try and get at the truth. This entire mystery surely can’t endure for yet another hundred years. Rob, re the above, Sally will likely have access to far more info but a section in the Friedman’s book says this, so the disbelief around Wells-Gallup appears to predate the publication of Shakespeare Examined by 57 years.
  • Create New...