Bacon, a Tudor Prince?

[Light-of-Truth]

OK, Googling "Robert Devereux birthday" in many variations led nowhere, tons of one or the other dates as facts. No evidence that I saw.

So I searched the dates, "November 10, 1565" and "November 19, 1567". Thought I was being a sleuth!

Surprisingly little came up. Almost made me sad. Nobody has cared enough to make his birthday historic whenever it was. Well, he did not die a hero, so who cares.

Bacon did, another sad thing.

[Light-of-Truth]

And the audience says...

"Robert Devereux" and "1565" gives 16,300 results.

"Robert Devereux" and "1567" gives 15,000 results. (Incredibly close!)

67 seems to have the bigger names even if outnumbered. Yet I still do not see a grain of evidence to look into anywhere.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Devereux-2nd-earl-of-Essex

Robert Devereux, 2nd earl of Essex, (born Nov. 10, 1567, Netherwood, Herefordshire, Eng.—died Feb. 25, 1601, London), English soldier and courtier famous for his relationship with Queen Elizabeth I (reigned 1558–1603). While still a young man, Essex succeeded his stepfather, Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester (died 1588), as the aging queen’s favourite; for years she put up with his rashness and impudence, but their relationship finally ended in tragedy.

Where are the documented mentions, praises, rumors, whatever else of a new boy in England? 1567 or 1565, where is the paper trail? The 2nd Earl of Essex doesn't just appear when he is ten or twelve years old.

He had his MA in 1581 with proof? 14 years old if born in 67. Could be. But I know I know NOTHING about him! I admit.

This is on wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Devereux,_2nd_Earl_of_Essex

On 21 September 1578, Essex's mother married Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, Elizabeth I's long-standing favourite and Robert Devereux's godfather.^[4]

Well, there ya go...

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Light-of-Truth

[Eric Roberts]

6 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

And the audience says...

"Robert Devereux" and "1565" gives 16,300 results.

"Robert Devereux" and "1567" gives 15,000 results. (Incredibly close!)

67 seems to have the bigger names even if outnumbered. Yet I still do not see a grain of evidence to look into anywhere.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Devereux-2nd-earl-of-Essex

Robert Devereux, 2nd earl of Essex, (born Nov. 10, 1567, Netherwood, Herefordshire, Eng.—died Feb. 25, 1601, London), English soldier and courtier famous for his relationship with Queen Elizabeth I (reigned 1558–1603). While still a young man, Essex succeeded his stepfather, Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester (died 1588), as the aging queen’s favourite; for years she put up with his rashness and impudence, but their relationship finally ended in tragedy.

Where are the documented mentions, praises, rumors, whatever else of a new boy in England? 1567 or 1565, where is the paper trail? The 2nd Earl of Essex doesn't just appear when he is ten or twelve years old.

He had his MA in 1581 with proof? 14 years old if born in 67. Could be. But I know I know NOTHING about him! I admit.

This is on wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Devereux,_2nd_Earl_of_Essex

On 21 September 1578, Essex's mother married Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, Elizabeth I's long-standing favourite and Robert Devereux's godfather.^[4]

Well, there ya go...

 

Light-of-Truth:  Where are the documented mentions, praises, rumors, whatever else of a new boy in England? 1567 or 1565, where is the paper trail? The 2nd Earl of Essex doesn't just appear when he is ten or twelve years old.

What if the birth of the child who became "Robert Devereux" wasn't formally registered until 5-6 years after he was born? According to Von Know:

https://sirbacon.org/essex-devereux.htm

Maybe he did "just appear" in 1572...?

[A Phoenix]

Hi Eric and Rob,

I assume one of the reasons for the discrepancy and confusion surrounding Essex's date of birth originates from the secrecy surrounding it and not to mention all the lies and charades relating to the royal births of Essex and FB which still continues to the present day. 

[A Phoenix]

The List of Kings and Queens in the inscription room at Canonbury Tower, London. A most definite 'F' inbetween Elizabeth and James.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonbury_Tower#/media/File:Canonbury_Tower_-_list_of_Kings_and_Queens_of_England_in_the_Inscription_Room_IMG_0078.jpg

[Allisnum2er]

1 hour ago, A Phoenix said:

The List of Kings and Queens in the inscription room at Canonbury Tower, London. A most definite 'F' inbetween Elizabeth and James.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonbury_Tower#/media/File:Canonbury_Tower_-_list_of_Kings_and_Queens_of_England_in_the_Inscription_Room_IMG_0078.jpg

Good morning A Phoenix,

Thank you for sharing.🙏 I did not know about this inscription.

I must admit that, for me, it looks more like a letter E (as the one of Elizabetha on the same line).

By making a quick research, I discovered this interesting essay on Canonbury Place & Tower by Peter Dawkins :

https://www.fbrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Canonbury_Place__Tower.pdf 

Personally, here is what I find interesting ...

WILL:CON:WILL ...

HEN: TRES ...

EliZABETHA ...

And the B in the A of Elizabetha that looks like a 3 could be a way to hide 33 with the "Tres" of Henry 3.

Thus, It give us, vertically, BACON - 33

[A Phoenix]

Hi Yann,

I have read a number of articles on the Canonbury inscription where some have seen a letter F and others an E, and have subjected the inscription to a number of different, and in some instances, very ingenious interpretations. But none of them (as far as I recall) spotted BACON 33 encoded within it. Brilliant!

 

 

[Allisnum2er]

I would like to share with you some ideas ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonbury_Tower#/media/File:Canonbury_Tower_-_list_of_Kings_and_Queens_of_England_in_the_Inscription_Room_IMG_0078.jpg

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

(Red dotted line added by me)

On a vertical line we have ROS. and the anagram of TUDOR.

Moreover, if my count is correct,  SOROR is the 33rd word and SUCCEDIT is the 34th word.

Thus, right after Elizabetha, we have the 33rd word (33 = BACON) and the 34th word (33+34 = 67 = FRANCIS).

SOROR : SUCCEDIT

BACON FRANCIS

SOROR is Latin for Sister and was used to name the nine Muses (Sorores novem).

 

[RoyalCraftiness]

On 5/7/2023 at 4:30 AM, A Phoenix said:

The List of Kings and Queens in the inscription room at Canonbury Tower, London. A most definite 'F' inbetween Elizabeth and James.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonbury_Tower#/media/File:Canonbury_Tower_-_list_of_Kings_and_Queens_of_England_in_the_Inscription_Room_IMG_0078.jpg

Why is this a most definite F when it is an E with most of the lower bar still showing clearly? And if we are to use AB and Con as Bacon why not use it to give Anthony Bacon? AB is three (1+2), showing that possible visible 3 suggestion. Are we discarding those theorists who claim Anthony Bacon wrote Shakespeare?

Won't the 33rd and 34th word always sum to 67? Elizabeth did succeed her sister Mary Tudor who was Queen in 1553 (that is noted here). So, there is an E in front of Jacobus which could mean anything which we could relate to his coming to the throne. Why not just suggest Electio? What sort of fishing expedition is this that relies only on what cannot be clearly read and the use of arbitrary sums? This is not what Bacon would call evidence if you ask me. It is much like the suggestion of evidence that there were secret documents hidden behind the paneling in that building by armchair Baconian theorists living in America doing ciphers. Evidence, let us not forget, fits under the category of a suggestion. Suggestions need to be torn apart before they are even accepted conditionally. Then they must continue to be looked at until there is nothing else that one could suggest is maybe going on. O how it is hard to know anything!

Maybe that E is for Edward DeVere, lol. This game really has no end if all are claiming the same esoteric techniques for the production of evidence. 

I see the Rosy of the Rosy Cross in there too. It's in a diamond that could be imagined to be in the center of a Vesica Piscis (where I is again). Could it point to a wedding and a child born of it? This does have all the requirements of an esoteric mystery if we want to make it be that. Was Bacon in the business of crafting esoteric mysteries to "punk" the non scientific crowd? Are many being tricked into realizing something very important about the acquisition of knowledge by a Hermes figure? Did he have a following of men that understood that commoners had to be led kicking and screaming into their own education and increasingly enlightened/progressive views. Would he not have catered to the exploitable aspects of the human psychology if he was a great statesmen? 

Part of the problem I am seeing is that there appears to be evidence of the same thing everywhere (the places with relevance) people want to look no matter what the thesis is. Who would actually be bothered to place evidence everywhere and why would history conspire to have it be placed everywhere afterwards? Is it a divine conspiracy? This has led some to imply that all writing of apparent relevance must have a connection to Bacon (to the point where he is numerous people).  There is no doubt that the evolving Baconian suggestion is real, but who is championing the suggestion and why? Could the admiration for Francis Bacon not be misguided and part of an evolving cult of personality?  Did he perhaps contribute something very important that not too many are focused on because it is ideological or philosophical and an antithesis to their own magical thinking?

Baconian suggestions have not been strengthened in time by those not using esoteric means to advance them. In fact, there is a sort of suggestion game still going on where we have ebbs and flows of who is getting the most publicity. It is also a bit like creationism.  If you still like that story you can go to Liberty University or Patrick Henry Law college to condition for the continued acceptance of that sort of way of thinking and earn a degree to offer you credentials. A strong thesis will develop the ways to not be negated by its antithesis without allowing for synthesis. There is resistance to altering one's thesis.  The one proposing a synthesis must do everything he can to get the sides to concede something. This is how the States were unite in the US after all. Each and every place had evolved to be its little bastion or kingdom of social preferences.

What do we make of those who have mocked the Baconian suggestions? I think of Lewis Carroll who has mocked it by the nonsense based literary suggestion that a map with nothing on it can lead you exactly where you want to go with your quest for an Ark like relic? And what do we make of the personalities who have written themselves into the intrigue by birthright, like Herge? Don't we have two sides who are willing to use the same story for their ends? Do all of those who use it make it more real? And who is to be trusted with knowing anything? I certainly don't see anyone who is capable of even acting like "one who knows" in this world. What we mostly see are people who are convinced of something they are gladly immersing themselves in.  It's a crying shame we are not all time travelers, because I would love to be able to have people go back to Rome ca. the beginning of the common era.

 

 

[Allisnum2er]

2 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

And if we are to use AB and Con as Bacon why not use it to give Anthony Bacon? AB is three (1+2), showing that possible visible 3 suggestion. Are we discarding those theorists who claim Anthony Bacon wrote Shakespeare?

Won't the 33rd and 34th word always sum to 67? Elizabeth did succeed her sister Mary Tudor who was Queen in 1553 (that is noted here).

If there are theorists who claim Anthony Bacon wrote Shakespeare, I do not remember that theorists claimed that Anthony Bacon was a Prince Tudor.

So you are off the subject !

Your ideas suggesting that AB is 3 and the capital E standing for Electio are interesting.

I know that the SOROR : SUCCEDIT refers to the fact that Elizabeth did succeed her Sister Mary Tudor.

But yes, indeed, whether you like it or not, I am opened to the possibility of another meaning in the light of my research.

And yes 33 and 34 always add to 67 !

https://archive.org/details/minervabritannao00peac/page/33/mode/2up

For me, the "CON" between two "WILL" is not insignificant.

This is a reference to WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, and I have already shared some of my work connected with the CONQUEROR without mentionning it.

When I mentionned that SOROR was the Latin word used to name the nine Muses, I should have say the "Thrice-Three Muses" that I had in mind !

Note that it is the 177th page of the First Folio ( 177 = WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE)

I also shared what I called the K1 cipher ...

The 160th page of the First Folio is page number 142 of LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST.

142 could be the numerical value of F. BACON - SHAKESPEARE.

And to get back to the subject and because all good things come in threes ...

 

 

[Light-of-Truth]

3 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Why is this a most definite F when it is an E with most of the lower bar still showing clearly?

I am sure this image has popped up on the B'Hive a year ago. I see the E, but I remember a thread and we kicked it around. I'll look for it, but just passing through right now while still working on my pay job! 😉

 

[Light-of-Truth]

15 minutes ago, Allisnum2er said:

If there are theorists who claim Anthony Bacon wrote Shakespeare, I do not remember that theorists claimed that Anthony Bacon was a Prince Tudor.

That is such a great point!

That said, I am hungry to know more about Anthony as Francis's adopted older brother!! Even one contemporary painting of Anthony will give me an appetizer!! And Francis was the subject of so much artistic record!

If we could compare the two knowing Sir Nicholas and Lady Anne raised them both with different DNA, what were the similarities and differences??

[Light-of-Truth]

3 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

It's a crying shame we are not all time travelers, because I would love to be able to have people go back to Rome ca. the beginning of the common era.

You know, if you had the interest and passion, I'll share what is my "belief."

<--1881-->

😉

 

[Light-of-Truth]

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Why is this a most definite F when it is an E with most of the lower bar still showing clearly?

Found the thread:

 

[Light-of-Truth]

3 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

The 160th page of the First Folio is page number 142 of LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST.

142 could be the numerical value of F. BACON - SHAKESPEARE.

Just playin'...for fun...

F BACON and WILL SHAKESPEARE

[Allisnum2er]

On 5/8/2023 at 9:29 PM, Light-of-Truth said:

That is such a great point!

That said, I am hungry to know more about Anthony as Francis's adopted older brother!! Even one contemporary painting of Anthony will give me an appetizer!! And Francis was the subject of so much artistic record!

If we could compare the two knowing Sir Nicholas and Lady Anne raised them both with different DNA, what were the similarities and differences??

Hi Rob,

Here are the Dedications to Anthony Bacon by Josuah Sylvester in "Du Bartas, His divine weekes"(1633)

https://books.google.fr/books?id=XN8rKQZfZwEC&pg=PP7&hl=fr&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Eric Roberts]

On 5/7/2023 at 7:41 PM, A Phoenix said:

Hi Yann,

I have read a number of articles on the Canonbury inscription where some have seen a letter F and others an E, and have subjected the inscription to a number of different, and in some instances, very ingenious interpretations. But none of them (as far as I recall) spotted BACON 33 encoded within it. Brilliant!

 

 

Hi A.P. - I have to agree with Peter Dawkins. But what are the missing letters!? The Canonbury Tower inscription deserves to be forensically analysed to determine once and for all what the original Latin word was.

[A Phoenix]

Hi Eric,

In his History of Islington John Nelson recorded the letter or letters as 'Fr'. As far as I am aware this is the earliest transcription of the Canonbury inscription. This work was published in 1811 some forty-odd years before W. H. Smith and Delia Bacon presented to the world the idea that Fr. Bacon was the secret author of the Shakespeare works followed in the next decades by the likes of Dr Orville Ward Owen and Elizabeth Gallup that he was the concealed royal son of Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.   

Since this time it is a recorded fact that the inscription has been restored and repainted on at least one occasion and most likely over a period of some two hundred years on several occasions. If the curiously missing obliterated word was originally FRANCIS in light of the nineteenth century claims made by Owen and Gallup it might have been obliterated to maintain the historical secret of FB's royal birth and that he was the rightful King of England who should have succesed his mother Queen Elizabeth.  With someone afterwards adding the lower horizontal stroke to make it look like an E.     

The vast majority of modern commentators since the articles by G. B. Rosher in Baconiana (1903, pp. 116-17; 1908, pp. 215-19) believe the letter in question is an E, and it looks that way now, although the editorial in the 1979 edition of Baconiana (p. 2) observed that 'The missing word begins with a strongly delineated F form, with a faint horizontal stroke apparently seeking to complete an E.'  It most definitely appeared as an F followed by an r to Nelson when he examined it in 1811 before it was subject to restoration and re-painting.

It is certainly all very mysterious and intriguing and we agree with you that it deserves to be forensically examined to determine what the original name or word actually was.

Full work here:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=l2LSAAAAMAAJ&pg=GBS.PA246&hl=en_GB

[Light-of-Truth]

We would like to request an xRay like they did with John Dee surrounded by skulls in the painting we all know so well. 😉

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-painting-of-john-dee-astrologer-to-queen-elizabeth-i-contains-a-hidden-ring-of-skulls-180957860/

A Painting of John Dee, Astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I, Contains a Hidden Ring of Skulls

The life and work of John Dee contained a strange mix of science and magic

Maris Fessenden

Former correspondent

January 18, 2016

 

A Victorian-era oil painting by artist Henry Gillard Glindoni captures one of the most enigmatic figures of Elizabethan England. In Glindoni's piece, Queen Elizabeth I sits in an elevated chair, surrounded by courtiers clothed in sumptuous fabric and the extravagant white neck ruffs of the time. All are peering with interest at the tall, black-robed figure of a man holding a vial over a small fire in a brazier by his feet.

The figure is John Dee, the Queen's advisor and astrologer; a man who mixed science and the occult and believed he spoke to angels. The painting captures some of the intrigue and allure Dee held, but x-ray imaging commissioned for the Royal College of Physicians' new exhibition, "Scholar, courtier, magician: the lost library of John Dee," reveals just how unsettling his reputation became — it shows that Glindoni first painted Dee surrounded by a ring of human skulls, reports Mark Brown for the Guardian.

Read more...>>

 

Is that Bacon to Elizabeth's left?

[Eric Roberts]

3 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

We would like to request an xRay like they did with John Dee surrounded by skulls in the painting we all know so well. 😉

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-painting-of-john-dee-astrologer-to-queen-elizabeth-i-contains-a-hidden-ring-of-skulls-180957860/

A Painting of John Dee, Astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I, Contains a Hidden Ring of Skulls

The life and work of John Dee contained a strange mix of science and magic

Maris Fessenden

Former correspondent

January 18, 2016

 

A Victorian-era oil painting by artist Henry Gillard Glindoni captures one of the most enigmatic figures of Elizabethan England. In Glindoni's piece, Queen Elizabeth I sits in an elevated chair, surrounded by courtiers clothed in sumptuous fabric and the extravagant white neck ruffs of the time. All are peering with interest at the tall, black-robed figure of a man holding a vial over a small fire in a brazier by his feet.

The figure is John Dee, the Queen's advisor and astrologer; a man who mixed science and the occult and believed he spoke to angels. The painting captures some of the intrigue and allure Dee held, but x-ray imaging commissioned for the Royal College of Physicians' new exhibition, "Scholar, courtier, magician: the lost library of John Dee," reveals just how unsettling his reputation became — it shows that Glindoni first painted Dee surrounded by a ring of human skulls, reports Mark Brown for the Guardian.

Read more...>>

 

Is that Bacon to Elizabeth's left?

Excerpts from:   The Angelic Reformation: John Dee, Enochian Magick & the Occult Roots of Empire, by Jason Louv

https://boingboing.net/2015/02/19/john-dee-was-the-real-life-mer.html

Re: Glindoni's painting, I see the resemblance of the figure standing beside QEI to Francis. If intended by the artist, he has also conferred on F.B. the Order of the Garter (blue ribbon).

Update: According to this article in The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jan/17/john-dee-painting-circle-of-human-skulls-exhibition#:~:text=7 years old-,John Dee painting originally had circle,skulls%2C x-ray imaging reveals&text=Hidden beneath a painting of,terrifying secret%2C research has discovered. the figure on Elizabeth's left in the white ruff is Walter Raleigh. Behind him, closest to the Queen is William Cecil. 

https://wellcomecollection.org/works/nydjbrr7/items

Edited May 11 by Eric Roberts

[Eric Roberts]

5 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi Eric,

In his History of Islington John Nelson recorded the letter or letters as 'Fr'. As far as I am aware this is the earliest transcription of the Canonbury inscription. This work was published in 1811 some forty-odd years before W. H. Smith and Delia Bacon presented to the world the idea that Fr. Bacon was the secret author of the Shakespeare works followed in the next decades by the likes of Dr Orville Ward Owen and Elizabeth Gallup that he was the concealed royal son of Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.   

Since this time it is a recorded fact that the inscription has been restored and repainted on at least one occasion and most likely over a period of some two hundred years on several occasions. If the curiously missing obliterated word was originally FRANCIS in light of the nineteenth century claims made by Owen and Gallup it might have been obliterated to maintain the historical secret of FB's royal birth and that he was the rightful King of England who should have succesed his mother Queen Elizabeth.  With someone afterwards adding the lower horizontal stroke to make it look like an E.     

The vast majority of modern commentators since the articles by G. B. Rosher in Baconiana (1903, pp. 116-17; 1908, pp. 215-19) believe the letter in question is an E, and it looks that way now, although the editorial in the 1979 edition of Baconiana (p. 2) observed that 'The missing word begins with a strongly delineated F form, with a faint horizontal stroke apparently seeking to complete an E.'  It most definitely appeared as an F followed by an r to Nelson when he examined it in 1811 before it was subject to restoration and re-painting.

It is certainly all very mysterious and intriguing and we agree with you that it deserves to be forensically examined to determine what the original name or word actually was.

Full work here:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=l2LSAAAAMAAJ&pg=GBS.PA246&hl=en_GB

Hi A Phoenix. I should have guessed you would have a source document at your disposal which supports the assertion that (originally) the obliterated word begins with an "F".

Nelson's transcription is in upper and lower case, whereas the inscription itself is all in capitals. Originally, it would have had to have read as FRANCIS. The defaced word has clearly been singled out for deletion - whatever it was must have caused offence to someone, presumably after 1811?  These two scrape marks (made with a knife?) show an intent to erase the second letter of the missing name.

Why was the first letter of the name preserved? Why not erase the name completely? Perhaps the vandalism happened in two stages - (i) the original name WAS completely erased and a new name added, followed by (ii) another later attempt to obliterate the substituted name. Perhaps, if the case was put to the present owner of Canonbury Tower that X-Ray images should be taken of the inscription and a scientific investigation undertaken to reveal the original name, they might just be interested.

[A Phoenix]

‘Heart-stopping’: censored pages of history of Elizabeth I reappear after 400 years
British Library uses new technique to uncover passages of Camden’s Annals, the first official account of Elizabeth’s reign'

Wasn't exactly sure where to put this post  - but it will certainly be of much interest to anyone interested in the Elizabethan period in general and Francis Bacon in particular. Although not sure ALL the censored pages will be made public. Camden knew a thing or two about how to present history. He was a close friend, confidante and collaborator of Bacon, and a member of his Rosicrucian Brotherhood, who left cryptical clues (anagrams, etc) revealing that FB was our secret supreme poet and dramatist Shakespeare.  

'Written in Latin, the Annals were based on first-hand evidence such as witness reports and official parliamentary records, collected by Camden, who died in 1623. Julian Harrison Lead curator at the British library says, “We have 10 volumes of the handwritten manuscripts … [of which] literally several hundred pages … [have] passages which had been covered up.” He added: “Modern historians have commonly relied on Camden’s Annals as an impartial and supposedly accurate record. This new research reveals that key sections were revised … It implies that Camden’s Annals were deliberately rewritten to present a version of Elizabeth’s reign that was more favourable to her successor.” He noted, for example, its claim that Elizabeth I had named James VI of Scotland as her successor on her deathbed: “Elizabeth never married and she died childless in 1603, to be succeeded on the English throne by Mary’s son, James VI of Scotland. Analysis of the manuscript drafts shows that the deathbed scene was a fabricated addition that Camden did not intend originally to put into his history. “He presumably included it to appease James, so that his succession looked more predetermined than it had actually been. Elizabeth was too ill to speak in her final hours and no other historical evidence points to this deathbed scene being true.”

Historians will now want to pore over this material. “There’s still more to be discovered,” Harrison said. “What’s going to be interesting is how modern interpretations of Elizabeth I, such an important historical figure, are potentially going to be changed.”

The researcher Helena Rutkowska has been working on the Annals as part of a collaborative doctoral award in a partnership between the University of Oxford, where she is a DPhil student, the British Library and the Open University. She spoke of the excitement of seeing original texts for the first time: “It was incredible … We’ve been able to clearly see new information that no one has seen for 400 years.”'

Full article here:

 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/14/heart-stopping-censored-pages-of-history-of-elizabeth-i-reappear-after-400-years

[Light-of-Truth]

Hope you (A. Phoenix), Christie, Kate, and Eric can have access to the Treasure Chest. Yann and I and many others will be ready to seek more hidden messages as you all discover! 🙂

 

[Light-of-Truth]

Quote

‘Heart-stopping’: censored pages of history of Elizabeth I reappear after 400 years
British Library uses new technique to uncover passages of Camden’s Annals, the first official account of Elizabeth’s reign'

I don't know about "Heart-stopping", but it makes my heart pump!!

[Light-of-Truth]

Camden...

https://sirbacon.org/links/abaconi1.htm

These remarks applying well to our subject, though made more particularly about playing with anagrams, occur in William Camdens famous little collection of miscellanies entitled "REMAINES CONCERNING BRITAINE," (edition of 1623). William Camden, known as Learned Camden, was a great historian and antiquary, a friend and associate of Francis Bacon. It was he, who started Ben Jonson, a bricklayer's son, upon his literary career, and all he says deserves respect. We find him well informed and skilled in many of the literary tricks we are studying,--such as Anagrams, or Transpositions, Rebus, or Name-devices, Impreses or Heraldic Emblems and Mottoes. And why? Because he appears to have found them a delightful witty relaxation after serious work, and, as a man with grave official responsibilities, perhaps also helpful in other ways. His chapter on Anagrams is especially valuable, because he gives the rules for their construction, and numerous examples.