Jump to content

Lawrence Gerald

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Lawrence Gerald

  1. 10 hours ago, A Phoenix said:



    The Tower of London still looms large on the London landscape but it was not always the dark and foreboding place of common perception.

    The Tower of London
    It was originally a castle and royal palace on the North bank of the River Thames built in 1078 by William the Conqueror. Throughout the ages it became synonymous with torture, incarcerations and executions of its unfortunate occupants which included Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, Lady Jane Gray and Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. Despite its grisly reputation only a handful of high status detainees were actually executed in the Tower grounds, most prisoners were executed publicly on nearby Tower Hill. Many were incarcerated here though including Princess Elizabeth Tudor and her childhood friend Robert Dudley.
    Unsurprisingly the foreboding London landmark is incorporated by Bacon several times in the Shakespeare plays noticeably in Henry VI part 1 and also in Richard III with the incarceration of the young princes and the drowning of Richard’s brother George in a butt of Malmsey wine.
    Beauchamp Tower, The Tower of London
    In a rather dark and heartbreaking coincidence there was a macabre Tudor parallel. Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, Francis Bacon’s younger concealed royal brother was incarcerated here in the Beauchamp Tower following the ill-fated Essex rebellion. In an ironical twist his blood father Robert Dudley was also incarcerated at the Beauchamp Tower many years earlier. The Beauchamp Tower is famous for the carvings and graffiti made by frightened prisoners leaving us connections and remembrances of their lives. According to The Tower of London, the Earl of Arundel, Thomas Abel (chaplain to Queen Katherine of Aragon) and Robert Dudley and his brothers all made carvings whilst there, which can be seen to this day. Not mentioned is the carving made by Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex the secret younger son of Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.
    Years earlier it is said that Queen Elizabeth had given Essex a ring which if he ever forfeited her favour, if he sent it back to her, its return would ensure his pardon and forgiveness. His royal brother Francis knew that Essex had only to return the ring and all would be forgiven. He may also have been informed that Essex had sent it. But the Queen never received the ring. Elizabeth was incredulous that Essex even at his lowest point and with his life in imminent danger did not possess the humility
    Robart Tidir, youngest son of Queen Elizabeth I. Thanks to Lawrence Gerald for this image.
    to send the ring it to her. It reinforced her deeply held fears that her concealed son would forever remain unruly and dangerous and she finally signed his death warrant. In those last days before his execution and in the face of imminent death, Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex carved into the stone wall his true name over the door way which can still be seen to this present day ‘ROBART TIDIR’, an old way of spelling ROBERT TUDOR, conveying his status as a concealed royal prince of England.

    Photo taken after some tourist removed the glass plaque over it. I just happened to be there when it happened. Dodd says Robert Cecil had people inside that intercepted the Essex ring. If it wasn't for Robert Cecil, falsely poisoning Elizabeth's mind that Bacon was power hungry, Essex would have lived and James wouldn't have become king, England would have advanced  a better future without enduring a Civil war, with Bacon as the Rightful King.

    • Like 2
    • Sad 1
  2. The Beefeater guards at the Tower of London (1992) when asked about the Tidir scrawl, look into their book of all  historical markings that exist in the Tower and told me  there is nothing about it and they claim they don't know either. So it's still a State maintained secret. Whether Essex carved it or not, its a red flag for British History being out of joint.

    Alfred Dodd, wrote that Robart Tidir  is the Welsh spelling of  Robert Tudor

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  3. Sunday 24 September 2023 - 'The Silver Key to the Rosicrucian Mysteries & Labour of Love' - Talk given on Zoom by Peter Dawkins about the Shakespeare First Folio, twin to the 'De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum', which constitute the hierophantic golden and silver keys to the Rosicrucian Mysteries and were deliberately published in 1623, the year of a Great Conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, so as to act out the “As above, so below” Hermetic teachings. 🌹+🌹=🌞


    • Like 4
  4. On 9/12/2023 at 8:00 AM, RoyalCraftiness said:

    Nope, it's not you, but it could be what you say if there are any occasions of it being sufficiently unwarranted, ridiculous or based in the magical. This comes with the territory of being criticized for saying what one says. It is something we all invite upon ourselves by deciding to open our mouths with conviction. Opposing ideas have the ability to annihilate themselves when brought together. They can't exist in the same space as statements of fact. The people need not annihilate themselves. 

    The suggestion that I am aiming digs is an ad hominem attack and a form of blaming the potential victim for being responsive to an attempt at recruitment. Opposing efforts at recruitment isn't really a dig. One has to imagine a personal dimension to it. I assume that is what you are doing with me. I do not perceive that the attempt at recruitment will work on me. I would not want it to work on others without a proper skeptical treatment. I'd love for there to be proofs of things. Don't get me wrong on that point.

    I do not read every comment, and when I do read one that is next in line to one I do read I may, for whatever reason, be triggered enough to criticize. What I have observed is that since I have openly criticized the overly and incorrectly used word "proof" it has been thrown out even more often cavalierly. It may, or may not, be an attempt to prod or to plant a flag. It could be a defensive reaction that is based out of fear that not enough has been offered or that more of the same will surely help. It may just be that I am looking in the wrong threads if I do not want to encounter that. The current interactions on this site seems to be in a few threads heavy on the allegation of proofs, though, and that has meant that I have been exposed to what is there when I look. There may be many other occasions of people claiming proofs I seem to be unaffected by. It's not much to ask that you not obsess over what you see. And please, kindly stop speaking for the one without a voice. It's giving this place a decidedly cultish feel.

    Where did I say I knew Dee personally? I have no such delusion. It's pretty easy to demonstrate he lived before my time, and that there is no way for him to be speaking to me, or me with him, from the dead. All I will ever encounter are people speaking for him or in his name. That's not a suggestion I made. Dee was a charlatan and a con man. He fumbled around with Enochian magic which is itself a massive delusion based in folk tales (if it was actually believed to be real). That is to say he used what he had to play with to convince people of things. More power to him if he succeeded. Among the gullible were no less than the non virgin Queen herself--a wonderful patron and a perfect mark. The same unfortunate reality existed with Queen Victoria and her friends like Constance Pott. You could have met them at a séance after all. Nice ladies, to be sure...except that Victoria really wasn't a nice lady when we look into it. Shades of King James...Nice people are a myth if you ask me. Just cross them...

    We have the benefit of looking back to these people's actions to know some of their beliefs. Scientists eventually came to see a very large swath of the lingering hermeticists and alchemists as scientific impostors,  because in time it was shown that what they were speaking of and dreaming of was unattainable, and in some important instances, impossible to achieve. Those who lived long enough to know better may have changed their views, but for some old beliefs they persisted and kept finding a home despite the change in the state of the knowledge. The line in the sand, philosophically speaking, is Bacon's method. I do feel I must speak or Bacon here before he is made out to be a forever astrologer, an ancient hermeticist, a stuck in time alchemist, a seer and a prophet to serve the beliefs of some modern day mystics looking for an English speaking idol. If he were alive today would be teach at Liberty University in the good old US of A? 

    Astrologer as a profession... That's a hoot. You mean like Joan Quigley who was the Reagans' astrologer? A fool and his money are soon parted.  A profession is a real thing. What one claims to do in one's profession need not be. The doctor is the gatekeeper of the prescription pad and some representation of a professed business rationale towards medicine. One can very easily distrust the business rationale for the existence of the doctor as a professor of the business faith. The Dee question is a whole other ball of wax isn't it? Determinism versus non-determinism.  The world in which we can know the future in fine detail and where things repeat like clockwork is a demonstrable fiction. Time travelling is not possible. There is no prophecy in our world that is not a self fulfilling prophecy. The dream is not a tool to know anything with certainty. It is the evidence of the power of our minds armed with imagination to synthesize narratives. Guessing right will always be possible.

    Astrologer's produce belief, and producing belief is real enough. The power of the belief over the person is the magic in the wand. There is no other kind. This has led to a very troubling stating of the idea that one can make his own reality by controlling his beliefs. This is demonstrably horrible logic. There will always be the placebo effect to try and prop everything else with, I'm afraid. One impressive instance of a physiological consequence to the individual for its inner chemical response to a created mind state has been extrapolated to the non living with forces no one has demonstrated exist. Force isn't even the right word, because that would imply particles and there are none for that in the entirety of the energy spectrum. I suppose it all has to fall upon the photon and light. That, at least, has a long history of being used to demonstrate otherworldly action.

    There can be no respect for certain ideas, and they should not be protected by insisting that one should love the person championing them. Love itself is too fuzzy a word to invoke. To love someone has meant in many a religious text that ideas needed to be beat out of a person violently. The tribe has always attempted to do information control. 

    What there may be not enough of in this world is the sort of "shunning" that gets practiced by the small enclaves of strong believers (credit goes to the Mormons and Jehova Witnesses). They know how to protect ideas. We've collectively invited everyone to the party (freedom to speak as one wants publicly) in hopes that the mutual exchanges could be observable and that reason could prevail in the convincing of young minds before small factions reproduce their way into being large ones. You see this commendable attitude among the champions of reason (Sam Harris, Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russel...). We're not supposed to want to silence anyone if we want there to be an arena were reason can interact with the unreasonable. What do you want Kate? Do you want there to be no backlash against some claims? Do you want me to coddle you and to allow you your beliefs around synchronicity and other examples of apophenia so you can feel comfortable? I would not do it to my child if I had one. How does the hierarchy of love work?  There has to be some recognition and expectation that statements are going to be challenged if we have a goal to get to what we can show and know. 

    To the degree that the endeavor began to employ observation and empiric data Bacon, Kepler and others became proto scientists and fledgling astronomers based in reason.  Kepler was chasing a principle that he believed was fundamental (the constancy or immutability of something that was an imagined property of God). He numbered his Laws in three. There's ample evidence that even when he deduced correct physical realities he was giving them biased interpretations which favored ideas of musical harmony (a Pythagorean view of God). I hear your objections, and I agree with them to a certain point. Bacon and Kepler are not yet scientists. None of us are if we are honest. They were, and we are, still under the illusion that the science can come and sanction beliefs that we have an intuition about. Newton was no different. By the time we get to Darwin things got seriously threatening for some people's beliefs. Even today I find it interesting that some can compartmentalize the scientific method and believe in the unreasonable to the point of harboring both. That is only possible because of the inability to know and the power of suggestion. This will always offer a cornucopia of possibilities to people with vivid imaginations and strong biases. We have a long way to go if we value knowing. I still firmly believe that there are things that are unprovable that will follow us because they still seem possible. It is not helped by the fact that all our better explanations are getting harder and harder to grasp. The fact that Nature is bathed in complexity makes it hard for anyone to relate to it, especially the young and impressionable. That troubles those who would want to know Nature with simple rules, be it three of them or seven of them.

    I can easily desist if I do not read. Is that what you want to have happen? I won't desist out of a feeling I must cower or earn your love. I will still continue to interact publicly to have reason and the unreasonable clash. It's what reasonable people want. Not sure how you're going to react to it...Should I care?

    A lot of things can be avoided if some would get off their high horse and desist in using "proof" for effect. There is no proof that the authorship question is even warranted. I've seen it all when it comes to the suggestions. None of it adds up to a proof. There is a lot of proof that Bacon wrote things which are damaging to myths and bad syllogism. I would wager that I am on he right side of Bacon just from having read Bacon. If I am to know Bacon from reading Shakespeare then the desired end is already achieved for some.


    I have just caught up on this.

    I’m not happy with the tone of  your posts RC. Good to have you as a ‘counterbalance’ as Kate said and happy for all points of view, but in a polite and respectful manner please. LG

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
  5. More Media Obfuscation on Much Ado About Nothing?

    Reviews of ‘Shakespeare Without a Life,’ ‘Stalking Shakespeare,’ ‘What Was Shakespeare Really Like?’ and ‘Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies.’


    Can anyone get the Full Article? Asking for a Friend....


    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  6. Congratulations to our good friend Jono Freeman aka "Jono Bury" Freeman now  on the winding stair to becoming a new Council Member of the Francis Bacon Society on September 13th during the Annual General Meeting.
     Jono's  myriad skill set from acting, teaching, while performing some of the best original satire-up tempo  rip roaring videos on the Authorship will bring an entertaining future to the Society and the relief of man's estate. It will be fun to watch his growing stardom.


    • Like 5
  7. "From away back toward the very beginning of the Shakespeare-Bacon controversy I have been on the Bacon side, and have wanted to see our majestic Shakespeare unhorsed. My reasons for this attitude may have been good, they may have been bad, but such as they were, they strongly influenced me."

    -Mark Twain (1909)twain jpg.jpg

    • Like 1
    • Wow! 3
  • Create New...