Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The church "records" show that Shakespeare was baptized  on the twenty sixth day of April in the year 1564.

I wondered if anyone agrees with me in that: if no water or liquid of any description, was used in the process, then no baptism could have taken place. In other words a baptism requires water/liquid.

If that is true, then the name Guillimus (William) Shakespeare would not have been legal as such.

  • Confused 1

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was his Christian given name?

His father was apparently a dissenting Catholic. It's unclear if he was religious at all since he was quite prone to illegal side dealings. I suppose that is quite common among Christians of all persuasions. 

Funny fact. The Church records also show that he was buried on the following service after the wedding of my ancestors. This is a claim to fame that many North Americans have since the couple in question found their way to North America where the family became the most prolific of all New England families in terms of genealogical spread. Just goes to show that many have a common ancestor who probably knew the Shakespeares.

Should we ask: what's in a name?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm convinced that there was no such poet/playwright called William Shakespeare, the name being an invention along with all matter bearing the name.

John Dee, his son Arthur, Ben Jonson, Francis Bacon, Marlowe..... quite a list of persons all involved, using the Shakespeare badge in secret. But that's me.

That's the reason why I think no such baptism ever took place, no matter what copies of church registers might say. John Dee published his Monas Hieroglyphica in 1564,

he wrote mentioning pregnancy and a child. This was to hint at his main work: to engineer the Shakespeare name.

The so-called baptism was a dry occasion, thus no legitimate name, and was the reason why no birth was ever recorded.

 

Perhaps we should be looking more closely into the famous sentence spoken by Juliet Capulet:  "What? in a names"

  • Like 1

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peethagoras said:

I'm convinced that there was no such poet/playwright called William Shakespeare, the name being an invention along with all matter bearing the name.

John Dee, his son Arthur, Ben Jonson, Francis Bacon, Marlowe..... quite a list of persons all involved, using the Shakespeare badge in secret. But that's me.

That's the reason why I think no such baptism ever took place, no matter what copies of church registers might say. John Dee published his Monas Hieroglyphica in 1564,

he wrote mentioning pregnancy and a child. This was to hint at his main work: to engineer the Shakespeare name.

The so-called baptism was a dry occasion, thus no legitimate name, and was the reason why no birth was ever recorded.

 

Perhaps we should be looking more closely into the famous sentence spoken by Juliet Capulet:  "What? in a names"

There's this document from 1568 which mentions John Shakspeyr in the role he is known to have held. John Shakespeare When one does an internet search for the name John Shakspeyr every result I get returns/redirects to John Shakespeare, so it would seem that history has baptized him with that much certainty.

It does also appear that we are applying a name we know from later to a person who may not have known/used it once, but that may only be appearances. My original British ancestors did not spell the family name the same way at different times in their lives. When I do a genealogy search for their later name I can find many occasions of people who are referring to it, as opposed to the original spelling when that ought to be used. Same thing is true on my Scottish side if you go back far enough. What was a Norman name originally became something similar to a known English name after. Can we not at least agree that his name sounded like Shakespeare?  Is there a problem with being named William? To allege the faking of historical documents is to propose a conspiracy theory. There are legitimate reasons why differences can exist. I do think that efforts are being made by some to not stress the differences because of a fear that would fan the flames of doubt. That may be paranoia instead of malicious intent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, peethagoras said:

I'm convinced that there was no such poet/playwright called William Shakespeare, the name being an invention along with all matter bearing the name.

Well, yes, I agree. William Shakespeare was a "pen" name for Bacon. He had a little help from friends, but Bacon was Shakespeare.

Yet, I will share that over these past 25 years or so I have accepted that there was a guy named William Shakspur, or some spelling version of the last name. Even with my Baconian filters on overdrive, there is some validated scattered history of this guy who was just a nobody in a small mostly illiterate country town.

The name William Shakespeare on plays and poems may have appeared before the country boy had any role in my opinion.

Years after the bumpkin Willy died he became famous. His life history may demonstrate some connection to the world we know as Shakespeare, but the real Shakespeare is hidden behind that goofy mask we all know with a giant forehead that looks like a globe.

Yet there is a very real history of the Stratford guy as puny as it is. All the details are fuzzy. A Stratfordian might write a book containing hundreds of pages based on what I just said feeding the myth. Yet, Willy the Stratford Hillbilly who scratched his name in ink a few times over his unmemorable life when required is difficult to logistically or intellectually connect with the Works of Francis Bacon as William Shakespeare.

 

 

 

  • Like 3

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

“copied them from an earlier register that no longer survives”. 🧐 


Lines like that are enough to turn anyone into a conspiracy theorist!

“Although dated 1564, the entry, and all other entries before September 16, 1600, are in the hand of a professional copyist who transferred them from an earlier register that no longer survives, in compliance with a 1598 regulation that parish authorities should acquire new parchment registers and copy all existing entries into it. The copyist either miscopied "Johannis" as "Johannes" or copied a mistake made by the original scribe.

We may never know the exact day of Shakespeare’s birth. According to The Book of Common Prayer (1559), it was recommended that infants should be baptized on the next Sunday or holy day following their birth, to allow the greatest number of people to witness the sacrament”

A small square fragment at the bottom right corner of the page was removed at some point before 1897, when Richard Savage noted it missing

https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/parish-register-entry-recording-william-shakespeares-baptism

  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, ii is my sincere understanding that the so-called baptism of a future poet/playwright never happened. It is also my understanding that the so-called family graves situated in the Holy Trinity Church, Stratford on Avon, were part of a great con-trick: to give credence to the lie.  Are we to accept that no-one had sufficient power in those far off days to engineer such a feat? What would it have taken back then to alter/add/ an entry in a church register?  Corrupt officials grew on trees in the 1500's.  

The question that should be asked, is why is it there's no "conspiracy theory"  attached to Ben Jonson, no folio full of "typos", no lack of documents, no peculiar dedication pages, .......... &c. I mean, the very first page of text in the First Folio is a good example of what is taken as poor workmanship, yet two pages further in, there's no lack of workmanship in the epistle dedicatory to the "incomparable pair of brethren", or the page dedicated "the great variety of readers". In truth, the page that shows the least quality, is the very first page that meets the eye. Then there's the "Droeshout portrait", apparently done by an apprentice. Say no more.

 

 

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peethagoras said:

ii is my sincere understanding...

Hmmm, "understanding" would imply based on evidence you've come across. The ideas you expressed have been talked about here over the past year on many levels. Ben Jonson being one guy who pops up several times. He was Bacon's friend, living in his home as the 1623 Folio was being fine-tuned. Imagine being there as observers of their conversations as they adjusted a few words or letters for a better result.

I haven't heard anything about the Shakspur family graves though. Willy's Baptism? There is a baptism record, never thought of it being faked. It seems like in 1623 the guy who history might have gone back to find and make a monument was unknown as far as being Shakespeare. Bacon's friends and inner circle knew; poets both concealed and public.

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Sorry folks, but I forgot all about this post I started. I have just slapped my wrist.

Back to that so-called baptism:

The date we have is 1564

1564 is the product of four prime numbers: 2, 2, 17 and 23.

Because 2 times 2 = 4

                 1564 = 4 times 17 times 23.

According to the old alphabet

                D = 4,   R = 17   Y = 23

Therefore no "baptism" took place because it was a DRY year.

Therein lies a hint of John Dee's humor.

Also: 1564 can be seen as 56 inside 14:

where 14 = DEE and 56 = WORD.

 

And of course he published his Monas Heiroglyphica in the very same year.

 

 

Edited by peethagoras
missed text
  • Like 1

The man in the moone was not a buffoon

 

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...