A Phoenix Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA 3 https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY7wzlXnZiT1Urwx7jP6fQ/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Phoenix Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 The Enigmatic Allegorical Pregnancy Portrait The enigmatic portrait depicts a pregnant Queen Elizabeth in an extraordinary gown embroidered with branches of foliage incorporating into its design various symbolic birds and flowers. She is wearing a curious headdress with a veil extending down her back standing beneath a large walnut tree bearing its fruit with a stream receding into the distance. Her right hand crowns a weeping stag with a circle of pansies. Three enigmatic Latin mottos are placed down the trunk of the tree and in the bottom right-hand corner of the picture stands an elaborate cartouche with a special sonnet whose anonymous authorship has never been established. It is also not known who secretly commissioned this allegorical painting of Queen Elizabeth which will be revealed and confirmed here for the first time and its coded complex imagery and symbolism, properly contextualised, decoded and deciphered. #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA 3 https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY7wzlXnZiT1Urwx7jP6fQ/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Phoenix Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 This famous Ditchley portrait of Queen Elizabeth by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger is housed in the National Portrait Gallery #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA 1 2 https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY7wzlXnZiT1Urwx7jP6fQ/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Phoenix Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 When the Ditchley portrait is placed alongside the Pregnancy portrait the similarities between the two paintings are only all too clear to see #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA 3 https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY7wzlXnZiT1Urwx7jP6fQ/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Roberts Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 (edited) 10 hours ago, Lawrence Gerald said: British Library authorities support misinformation as seen in Andrew Dickson's article that suggests that "The Book of Sir Thomas More" "is the only surviving manuscript in Shakespeare's hand." https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/wretched-strangers-shakespeares-plea-for-tolerance-towards-immigrants Now kept in the vaults of the British Library, (‘The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore’ ) is a play script from the late 16th century or early 17th, in draft form and dense with revisions and changes. Its main author seems to be the now little-known poet and playwright Anthony Munday (c. 1560–1633), but the text also appears to contain the handwriting of four fellow dramatists including a shadowy figure known initially as ‘Hand D’. In 1871, scholars proposed an identity for Hand D – William Shakespeare. If they are correct, the manuscript of Sir Thomas More contains something incalculably precious: the only example of Shakespeare’s handwriting in a literary manuscript. According to anonymous-shakespeare.com, Anthony Munday was born about the same time as Francis Bacon (1560) and was sent to Italy at the age of 18 (1578) by Walsingham to spy on Roman Catholics... http://www.anonymous-shakespeare.com/cms/index.319.0.1.html Peter Dawkins mentions Munday in his essay on "The Shakespeare Circle": https://www.fbrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The_Shakespeare_Circle.pdf As for Hand D, how is it possible to claim that William Shakespeare annotated/corrected the manuscript when no examples of his handwriting exist, other than a few ineptly scrawled signatures? Edited February 11 by Eric Roberts 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christie Waldman Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Distinguishing Shaxpere from Shakespeare as we must. The Folger library admits "We don't really know what Shakespeare's handwriting looks like" (they are assuming Shaxpere was Shakespeare). And then there's forensic expert Maureen Ward-Gandy's report that the Shakespeare analog play fragment found in binder's waste was written in Francis Bacon's own handwriting. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Roberts Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 13 hours ago, A Phoenix said: When the Ditchley portrait is placed alongside the Pregnancy portrait the similarities between the two paintings are only all too clear to see #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA The public (Ditchley) and the private (Gheeraerts) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Roberts Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 (edited) Thanks Christie for pointing out the Folger's admission re: Shaxpere's handwriting. One has to assume that the British Library is being (at best) disingenuous in claiming that Hand D is that of "Shakespeare". They must know that this is a wild assumption in order to keep the myth alive. Surely, if Maureen Ward-Gandy had been asked her expert opinion about 'The Book of Sir Thomas More' she would have had to decline on the grounds that there is nothing to compare the handwriting in question with? Unlike her brilliant work which you reported on concerning the fragment from I Henry IV. https://christinagwaldman.com/2020/05/14/fragment-of-i-henry-iv-found-in-binders-waste/ Edited February 11 by Eric Roberts 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light-of-Truth Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Is there an online collection of images of Bacon's beautiful handwriting? I admit, I still cannot totally read Elizabethan script, but I will claim to be good enough to know Bacon achieves a standard of excellence in style! 🙂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#/media/File:BaconBurghley.png "A letter written by Francis Bacon containing the words "I am sorry the joint masque from the four Inns of Court faileth". The letter may have been written either to Lord Burghley (before 1598) or Lord Somerset (1613)." 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 More sharing options...
Eric Roberts Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 2 hours ago, Eric Roberts said: Thanks Christie for pointing out the Folger's admission re: Shaxpere's handwriting. One has to assume that the British Library is being (at best) disingenuous in claiming that Hand D is that of "Shakespeare". They must know that this is a wild assumption in order to keep the myth alive. Surely, if Maureen Ward-Gandy had been asked her expert opinion about 'The Book of Sir Thomas More' she would have had to decline on the grounds that there is nothing to compare the handwriting in question with? Unlike her brilliant work which you reported on concerning the fragment from I Henry IV. https://christinagwaldman.com/2020/05/14/fragment-of-i-henry-iv-found-in-binders-waste/ References re: "Shakespeare's" handwriting and "The Book of Sir Thomas More": https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shakespeare's_handwriting https://essentialmore.org/wp-content/uploads/Shakespeare-and-Hand-D.pdf https://archive.org/details/reviewsdiscussio00speduoft/page/376/mode/2up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/jstor-288948/page/n1/mode/2up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/shakespearesengl01lees/page/n375/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater Expert conjecture and wishful thinking, as far as I can tell... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light-of-Truth Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 OMG! Willy's Will is in the same secretary style as Bacon's. The angles on the tails, letter combinations, oh my! 🙂 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shakespeare's_handwriting#Media/File:Shakespeare-Testament.jpg 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 More sharing options...
Light-of-Truth Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 How about this to explain the obvious leap from the few signatures to writing the Shakespeare works: https://archive.org/details/shakespeareshand00polluoft/page/63/mode/2up "The close of this general survey of the six authentic signatures of Shakespeare may be a fitting place to refer to opinions which have been entertained that in his later years he suffered from nervous disease which betrays itself in his handwriting." Fascinating article, yet funny how they do their best to support the house of cards. 😉 Page 67, a "coincidence"... 2 1 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 More sharing options...
Christie Waldman Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Hi Eric. Thanks, Eric, for the reference to my blogpost on the topic. It may give fuller references than I will give below, or else check my book, appendix 4. As she discusses in her 25-page 1992 report, Maureen Ward-Gandy blindly compared the handwriting sample which British historian Francis Carr presented to her (the play fragment associated with The First Part of Henry IV found in binder's waste in a 1586 copy of Homer's Odyssey in 1988) with the handwriting of a number of writers from the era. "Elizabethan Era Writing Comparison for Identification of Common Authorship." Her outstanding credentials as a highly-respected forensic analyst both in the U.S. and in the U.K. are set forth at this (SirBacon.org) website (Maybe there's a better way to search for it, but I found it today by searching the SirBacon.org archive for October, 2022. https://sirbacon.org/2022/10/). Her report was first published by Algora Publishing in my book, see Appendix 4, "Handwriting On the Wall," Francis Bacon's Hidden Hand in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice (2018). The play fragment has an entry at the Lost Plays Database (run by David McInnis, Folger website), under the arbitrary name "Play of Thieves and a Gullible Tapster." The Lost Plays Database page refers to the bookseller Arthur Freeman who had seen the play fragment and written about it. He mentions having made his own amateur comparison of the fragment with a number of known dramatists of the period; this did, of course, exclude Francis Bacon's handwriting from consideration. Edwin J. Des Moineaux, a printer, published a pamphlet in 1924 in which he made his own amateur comparison of Hand D with a sample of Francis Bacon's writing. I wonder if a blind comparison could ever now be made of Hand D, by a qualified and unbiased expert, without someone recognizing it as Hand D. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light-of-Truth Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 That we are in Sonnet 18, the Eternal Sonnet of them all right now, and that I love a coincidence, I would suggest we should be interested in a handwriting comparison on Hand-D and Bacon. I see it, but I am no expert at all. This book's purpose is to prove Shakespeare wrote these three pages. I suspect they make a great argument that whoever wrote Shakespeare wrote these pages and they want to prove Willy did. https://archive.org/details/shakespeareshand00polluoft/page/n7/mode/2up "...since if Shakespeare wrote these three pages the discrepant theories which unite in regarding the "Stratford man" as a mere mask concealing the activity of some noble lord (a 17 th Earl of Oxford, a 6th Earl of Derby, or a Viscount St Albans) come crashing to the ground." If we can argue that Bacon (as well as an expert of handwriting may do) wrote these pages, then we add another straw to the Baconian weight of evidence piling up on the Stratfordian back. They make the argument for us, just need to flick the Light switch. Willy could not write, we know that. Who did? Whoever wrote these pages used a secretary script that at least resembles Bacon's well-known handwriting. My Vote, "or a Viscount St Albans" I'll play around, but I am not impartial. LOL 🙂 EDIT: DeVere's handwriting from what I've seen is totally different from Bacon's. 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 More sharing options...
Eric Roberts Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 6 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said: Is there an online collection of images of Bacon's beautiful handwriting? I admit, I still cannot totally read Elizabethan script, but I will claim to be good enough to know Bacon achieves a standard of excellence in style! 🙂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#/media/File:BaconBurghley.png "A letter written by Francis Bacon containing the words "I am sorry the joint masque from the four Inns of Court faileth". The letter may have been written either to Lord Burghley (before 1598) or Lord Somerset (1613)." Hi Light-of-Truth. Lambeth Palace Library have 74 digitised letters under the search term "Bacon". Only some are written by Francis, some are Anthony's and others are from other people. https://images.lambethpalacelibrary.org.uk/luna/servlet/view/all/what/Bacon+Papers?sort=creator%2Ctype%2Cdate%2Ctitle&pgs=50&res=1&cic=LPLIBLPL~17~17 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Phoenix Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 The Provenance Dr Altrocchi dates the portrait between 1594 and 1604 (the terminus ad quem) presumably determined by the death of the Earl of Oxford in 1604) whereas Sir Roy Strong narrows it down to c.1600-1, which fits rather nicely with his arguments linking Robert Devereux, second Earl of Essex to the painting. The early whereabouts of the portrait remain unknown or uncertain. In 1613 the Duke of Saxe-Weimer saw a portrait of what he described as ‘A beautiful Turkish lady’ at Somerset House, but whether this was the portrait by Gheerhaerts of a Persian Lady, or Elizabeth in a Persian dress, is open to doubt and cannot now be determined. Both Dr Altrocchi and David Shakespeare speculate the portrait was lost to the royal family sometime during the civil war following the beheading of Charles I in 1649. However this may be, the earliest specific reference to the painting is found in the notebooks of the antiquary George Vertue. He saw the painting in c.1728, describing it as a picture belonging to the crown of Queen Elizabeth. A few years later in 1735 he records that Sir John Stanley sometime ago recovered the picture of ‘Qu. Elizabeth in a strange fantastick habit’, while he was deputy to Queen Anne from a market in Moor Fields, that had the mark of Charles I on the back of it, which has since been removed. In the reign of Queen Anne I the portrait was recorded at St James’s Palace as ‘Queen Elizabeth in fancy dress’ It was later removed by Queen Caroline, wife of King George II, to Kensington Palace. It resided there for more than a century. It is described by W. H. Pyne in his chapter dedicated to Kensington Palace as a ‘Portrait of Queen ELIZABETH’ in ‘a fantastic Asiatic dress, seemingly of the Persian character.’ It was similarly noticed by Horace Walpole in the gallery of the royal personages which he described as a picture of ‘Elizabeth, in a fantastic habit, something like a Persian...drawn in a forest, a stag behind her’ and three ‘mottoes and verses, which as we know not on what occasion the piece was painted, are not easily to be interpreted.’ The painting was moved by Queen Victoria to Hampton Court Palace in 1838 where it now remains, described by Ernest Law the official historian at Hampton Court Palace and acclaimed expert on Tudor history, as ‘Queen Elizabeth in a fanciful dress’: ‘This curious picture, [he says] with its fantastical design, enigmatical mottoes, and quaint verses, doubtless had some allegorical meaning which we are now unable to interpret.’ Up to this point for several hundred years the painting had hung in royal palaces as a portrait of Queen Elizabeth until sometime in the twentieth century something rather remarkable occurred when its label at Hampton Court Palace was without explanation changed to a ‘Portrait of an Unknown Woman.’ With the portrait of Elizabeth rendered officially anonymous there have been a number of attempts to identify or label her as someone else, none of which need detain us. The three most recent investigators Francis Carr, Dr Altrocchi and David Shakespeare all rightly identify the portrait as a pregnant Queen Elizabeth. The world-renowned Elizabethan art critic Sir Roy Strong initially identified the sitter in the portrait as Elizabeth with the Earl of Essex as the transmuted stag, Actaeon: #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA 2 1 https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY7wzlXnZiT1Urwx7jP6fQ/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Phoenix Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 Sir Roy Strong & The Pregnancy Portrait #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA 1 2 https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY7wzlXnZiT1Urwx7jP6fQ/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Phoenix Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 Sir Roy Strong's Misleading Interpretation #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA Then in a matter of months in his 1993 article, Sir Roy argued Sir Henry Lee had commissioned the portrait of Lady Frances Walsingham, who he now claimed to be the sitter in the portrait, widow of Sir Philip Sidney and wife of Robert Devereux, second Earl of Essex, as part of a plan to rehabilitate Essex in the eyes of Elizabeth: 1 2 https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY7wzlXnZiT1Urwx7jP6fQ/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Phoenix Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 Alison Sorbie Rejects Sir Roy Strong's Interpretation #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA Strong's suggestion the woman in the portrait was Lady Essex has not been well-received. David Shakespeare rightly points out that the striking symbolism of the painting is not consistent with her known life, nor does the sentiment and content of the sonnet seem relevant to Lady Essex, and he tellingly asks ‘Why indeed would she be crowning her husband?’. 2 1 https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY7wzlXnZiT1Urwx7jP6fQ/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Phoenix Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 The Secret Symbolism & Its Misinterpretations The modern scholars that have examined, analysed, and discussed this very special portrait are all of a mind regarding its historical importance, its symbolic complexity, and the fact it contains a number of different coded messages. The widely recognized authority on Elizabethan paintings and portraiture Sir Roy Strong rightly observes that ‘Without doubt we are looking at perhaps the most complicated of all Elizabethan allegorical portraits, as complex as any of the Queen herself.’ There can be no doubt he states, ‘that we find ourselves in a presence which can certainly be described as something more than remarkable’ and ‘such a picture cannot have been conceived as anything other than a major statement’. Something similar is said by Alison Sorbie ‘Evidently there are various messages conveyed in the picture’ with ‘many allegorical aspects’ to it and ‘in order to identify the subject, it is necessary to decipher its complex imagery.’ It is, Sorbie adds, an emblem portrait and she believes along with Sir Roy Strong and Michael Bath that ‘the entire painting as been conceived as an emblem, the meaning veiled in a complex conceit.’ The Oxfordians Dr Altrocchi and David Shakespeare believe the complex painting which incorporates into its central emblem and symbolism the secret that the so-called pregnant Virgin Queen bore a son as a result of a secret liaison with the Earl of Oxford, whom they believe to be the secret author of the Shakespeare poems and plays, their secret love-child being Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton, to whom the Shakespeare poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece are dedicated. Professor Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel believed that the portrait depicted Elizabeth Vernon, wife of Southampton, who she believed was the Dark Lady of the sonnets, whose ménage a trois with her prospective husband and Shakespeare, left her with child, and it was Shakespeare that provided the sonnet, for this elaborate and emblematic testament to her pregnant state. None of the above authorities or writers once refer to Francis Bacon in relation to the pregnancy portrait, who would no doubt have been highly amused by their errors and confusion, his favourite twin themes regarding the fallibility of the human mind. #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA 1 2 https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY7wzlXnZiT1Urwx7jP6fQ/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Roberts Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, A Phoenix said: Sir Roy Strong & The Pregnancy Portrait #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA Comment deleted. Should have read the next slide first. Edited February 12 by Eric Roberts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Roberts Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 2 hours ago, A Phoenix said: The Provenance Dr Altrocchi dates the portrait between 1594 and 1604 (the terminus ad quem) presumably determined by the death of the Earl of Oxford in 1604) whereas Sir Roy Strong narrows it down to c.1600-1, which fits rather nicely with his arguments linking Robert Devereux, second Earl of Essex to the painting. The early whereabouts of the portrait remain unknown or uncertain. In 1613 the Duke of Saxe-Weimer saw a portrait of what he described as ‘A beautiful Turkish lady’ at Somerset House, but whether this was the portrait by Gheerhaerts of a Persian Lady, or Elizabeth in a Persian dress, is open to doubt and cannot now be determined. Both Dr Altrocchi and David Shakespeare speculate the portrait was lost to the royal family sometime during the civil war following the beheading of Charles I in 1649. However this may be, the earliest specific reference to the painting is found in the notebooks of the antiquary George Vertue. He saw the painting in c.1728, describing it as a picture belonging to the crown of Queen Elizabeth. A few years later in 1735 he records that Sir John Stanley sometime ago recovered the picture of ‘Qu. Elizabeth in a strange fantastick habit’, while he was deputy to Queen Anne from a market in Moor Fields, that had the mark of Charles I on the back of it, which has since been removed. In the reign of Queen Anne I the portrait was recorded at St James’s Palace as ‘Queen Elizabeth in fancy dress’ It was later removed by Queen Caroline, wife of King George II, to Kensington Palace. It resided there for more than a century. It is described by W. H. Pyne in his chapter dedicated to Kensington Palace as a ‘Portrait of Queen ELIZABETH’ in ‘a fantastic Asiatic dress, seemingly of the Persian character.’ It was similarly noticed by Horace Walpole in the gallery of the royal personages which he described as a picture of ‘Elizabeth, in a fantastic habit, something like a Persian...drawn in a forest, a stag behind her’ and three ‘mottoes and verses, which as we know not on what occasion the piece was painted, are not easily to be interpreted.’ The painting was moved by Queen Victoria to Hampton Court Palace in 1838 where it now remains, described by Ernest Law the official historian at Hampton Court Palace and acclaimed expert on Tudor history, as ‘Queen Elizabeth in a fanciful dress’: ‘This curious picture, [he says] with its fantastical design, enigmatical mottoes, and quaint verses, doubtless had some allegorical meaning which we are now unable to interpret.’ Up to this point for several hundred years the painting had hung in royal palaces as a portrait of Queen Elizabeth until sometime in the twentieth century something rather remarkable occurred when its label at Hampton Court Palace was without explanation changed to a ‘Portrait of an Unknown Woman.’ With the portrait of Elizabeth rendered officially anonymous there have been a number of attempts to identify or label her as someone else, none of which need detain us. The three most recent investigators Francis Carr, Dr Altrocchi and David Shakespeare all rightly identify the portrait as a pregnant Queen Elizabeth. The world-renowned Elizabethan art critic Sir Roy Strong initially identified the sitter in the portrait as Elizabeth with the Earl of Essex as the transmuted stag, Actaeon: #ElizabethI #VirginQueen #RobertDudley #FrancisBacon #RobertDevereux #PregnancyPortrait #HamptonCourt #RoyStrong #FrancisCarr Paper https://www.academia.edu/45006558/The_Pregnancy_Portrait_of_Queen_Elizabeth_I_and_The_Secret_Royal_Birth_of_Francis_Bacon_Concealed_Author_of_the_Shakespeare_Works Part 1 https://youtu.be/AFSxRYGxgjk Part 2 https://youtu.be/HWpuy13KHiA Highly concise, well-researched and thoroughly fascinating art history. Thanks A.P. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christie Waldman Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 11 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said: OMG! Willy's Will is in the same secretary style as Bacon's. The angles on the tails, letter combinations, oh my! 🙂 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shakespeare's_handwriting#Media/File:Shakespeare-Testament.jpg Have you all seen Charles Hamilton's book, In Search of Shakespeare: A Reconnaissance into the Poet's Life and Handwriting (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985)? Seeing this handwriting similarity between Bacon's handwriting and Shakespeare's Will, he suggests Bacon drafted Shakespeare's Will! What an interesting twist that would be, if true! He speculates broadly on Bacon's and Shakespeare's connection, trying to make his data fit his Stratfordian theory. I was not quite sure what to make of this book or how credible it was, since so much of it seemed to be conjecture and surmise. I had picked it up for a few dollars on a Barnes & Noble used book table. It's around here somewhere. Up to now, I've been hesitant to mention it. But he seems to be something of a "respected authority," though I'm wondering how that could be when he seems so willing to believe such far-fetched things with little or no proof, such as that Bacon borrowed from Shakespeare (Shaxpere)! A google search for the author and title, under "books," shows his book has actually been cited rather frequently, in books which include Peter Dawkins in The Shakespeare Enigma (p. 419) and even The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion ("Works Cited," p. 687) which itself makes little if any mention of "Francis Bacon," if I recall correctly. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light-of-Truth Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 7 hours ago, Christie Waldman said: Have you all seen Charles Hamilton's book, In Search of Shakespeare: A Reconnaissance into the Poet's Life and Handwriting (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985)? Seeing this handwriting similarity between Bacon's handwriting and Shakespeare's Will, he suggests Bacon drafted Shakespeare's Will! What an interesting twist that would be, if true! He speculates broadly on Bacon's and Shakespeare's connection, trying to make his data fit his Stratfordian theory. I have not seen it, and truly have not read many Baconian books after 2003 when I started my business. Time got used up to pay bills. 🙂 The handwriting is very similar, and I did read most and even studied Gandy's work as Bacon's handwriting is so fascinating to me! A huge resource: https://christinagwaldman.com/2020/05/14/fragment-of-i-henry-iv-found-in-binders-waste/ Below is a thread from the B'Hive that Kate initiated and was informative from July 2022: 2 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 More sharing options...
Eric Roberts Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 9 hours ago, Christie Waldman said: Have you all seen Charles Hamilton's book, In Search of Shakespeare: A Reconnaissance into the Poet's Life and Handwriting (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985)? Seeing this handwriting similarity between Bacon's handwriting and Shakespeare's Will, he suggests Bacon drafted Shakespeare's Will! What an interesting twist that would be, if true! He speculates broadly on Bacon's and Shakespeare's connection, trying to make his data fit his Stratfordian theory. I was not quite sure what to make of this book or how credible it was, since so much of it seemed to be conjecture and surmise. I had picked it up for a few dollars on a Barnes & Noble used book table. It's around here somewhere. Up to now, I've been hesitant to mention it. But he seems to be something of a "respected authority," though I'm wondering how that could be when he seems so willing to believe such far-fetched things with little or no proof, such as that Bacon borrowed from Shakespeare (Shaxpere)! A google search for the author and title, under "books," shows his book has actually been cited rather frequently, in books which include Peter Dawkins in The Shakespeare Enigma (p. 419) and even The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion ("Works Cited," p. 687) which itself makes little if any mention of "Francis Bacon," if I recall correctly. Conjecture: we know that Francis had a small army of scribes to transcribe his drafts, presumably in "secretary" script. Likewise, Shaxper's will would have been transcribed in a similar style. Lambeth Palace Library has examples of Bacon's "rough" or first draft handwriting which is very different from the more finished secretary's handwriting: https://images.lambethpalacelibrary.org.uk/luna/servlet/detail/LPLIBLPL~17~17~25380~105743?sort=creator%2Ctype%2Cdate%2Ctitle&qvq=q:"francis bacon;sort:creator%2Ctype%2Cdate%2Ctitle;lc:LPLIBLPL~17~17&mi=11&trs=15 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now