Jump to content

Edward De Vere


Recommended Posts

I’m not doubting for one minute, but for the sake of visitors to this forum who may be on the fence or confused, and to avoid having to wade through links to lengthy articles or papers explaining why he could not have authored the plays, what is your number one reason why Edward de Vere could not have been Shakespeare? You are only allowed one!  

I’m hoping to collect ‘soundbites’ to tweet as we approach Shakespeare’s birthday.

Thank you!


  • Like 1

 "For nothing is born without unity or without the point." amazon.com/dp/B0CLDKDPY8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kate,

There are simply countless reasons why Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford was not the author of the Shakespeare works not least because he could not and did not write them.

The divine immortal Shakespeare works were written by a transcendent philosopher (it is stated by some critics that FB is the greatest English philosopher in history); an incomparable writer of prose and poetry (many critics are of the view he was the greatest prose writer of the era); a world class lawyer-FB was solicitor-general, attorney-general, Lord Keeper and Lord Chancellor and as we might expect the Shakespeare works display an intimate familiarity with the principles and practices of all major branches of the law: common law, civil law, statute law, and the maxims of English law, as well as  its principles, complex technicalities, customs and jurisprudence; by a scientist (FB is widely credited with being the Father of Modern Science; by a linguist-FB was conversant with Greek, Latin, French and Italian (as was his mother Lady Bacon) the languages of the Shakespeare sources; and the secret author of the Shakespeare works possessed the greatest of all minds just as it is said FB was the wisest of all mankind and possessed the greatest intellect ever bestowed upon any man.

I have not forgotten Kate that you asked for the number one reason why Edward de Vere did not write the Shakespeare works.

Apart from there is not a single piece of credible evidence that Oxford wrote the Shakespeare works the simple answer is Oxford died in 1604 when almost one third of the Shakespeare plays had not then been written, including some of the greatest Shakespeare plays in the canon. Now as far as I am aware dead men do not write plays!

Furthermore the 1623 Shakespeare First Folio published 36 plays, around half of which had not previously seen print, many of which as stated were demonstrably written after 1604, with the others appearing in numerous quarto editions over a period of two decades. In total there are literally thousands of additional words and lines, as well as countless revisions and amendments, between the earlier quarto versions and the versions in the Shakespeare First Folio. Many of these revisions refer or allude to historical events occurring after 1604 (and 1616), as well as from 1621 onwards.

Now I can only think that the Oxfraudian fantasists must imagine that every time a play needed revising either between earlier and later quarto editions and/or the First Folio that they dug Oxford up and temporarily breathed new life into him. Then job done-killed him off and buried him again, and presumably every time any revisions were required, the process was continually repeated, until the Shakespeare First Folio was published, and he was thereafter mercifully allowed to rest in peace.





  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...