Oxfraud seven reasons
Oxfraud.com uses seven main reasons for supposedly disqualifying Edward de Vere as the author of the works of Shakespeare. This video summarizes their reasons which are repeated below:
- Shakespeare is not Oxford’s pseudonym.
- Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford) was dead before a third of the works of Shakespeare were written
- There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that Edward de Vere was the author of the works of Shakespeare.
- Just by looking at the writing of Edward de Vere it’s clear he is not the author Shakspeare.
- Edward de Vere’s education and birth give him no advantage were he the author known as Shakespeare.
- Edward de Vere’s background makes his candidacy for the authorship of Shakespeare more unlikely than probable.
- Oxford had no experience of the professional theatre.
I was working part time in the 1980s in Toronto and to pass the time, after I heard about this controversy, I decided to go to the Central Library, which is a copyright library and research this. I became very engrossed in it. I read Charlton Ogburn’s book and his mother’s book and and any others that I could find. I had studied Shakespeare at university but this new idea that de Vere was the author, or inspiration, for Shakespeare’s work really fascinated me and I took to reading the plays and watching them on rented videos. I became passionately interested in Shakespeare!
I don’t agree at all with your seven points but I don’t think there is any point arguing. I have continued to study the subject for the last 40 years and I have no doubt in my mind that de Vere was central to the writing of the plays whether as a patron, author or his life being worked into the plots. I really don’t think it matters. What does matter, to me, is to be open-minded and inquisitive. The nastiness and intolerance associated with this topic doesn’t shine a very good light on Stratfordians who, one would think because they are devotees of a great thinker, would welcome debate and interest in the works, and not who wrote them, and anything which encourages people to take an interest in the works is a good thing.
It is of note to recall as members of western society we accept readily the notion that COVID19 which has attributedly killed 100,000,000 people worldwide is proposed as (1) a virus borne from the idea of a ‘random walk’ in nature at one extreme to (2) being proposed as a virus created in a lab in China which got loose, spread and caused the havoc it did. Item (1) runs the odds gamut from 15-50% while (2) runs the odds gamut from 65-90%. Yet, self supposed thinking people steadfastly refuse to accept one premise or another as conclusive evidence regarding the virus. Those same kinds of people are found in the Shakespeare authorship understanding as steadfastly refusing to accept the possible premise that overwhelming circumstantial evidence exists for the authorship of Shakespeare being attributable to Edward deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford because there is some measure in the odds mathematics that deVere did not write under the Shakespeare pseudonym. One premise is true: (a) deVere wrote as Shakespeare or, (b) he did not. Period. As the vast amount of circumstantial evidence about the matter relates deVere in countless comparisons to what is known about Shakespeare, the negative proposition above makes no sense. None. All most of us inquisitors in the matter want is to know is who was Shakespeare. As there is virtually no circumstantial evidence relating Willim Shakspere (of Stratford fame) to William Shakespeare, the poet, and doubt about who Shakespeare truly was lives on, those who doubt deVere as that Shakespeare had better come up with another such candidate than Willim Shakspere for the title of Shakespeare if they are to have any credibility at all. That over the last 400 years or so such doubters have come up with no such circumstantially viable candidate suggest that proposition (a) above is far the better. Just as the COVID19 virus (1) aborning from a random walk in nature is the ‘far worse’ conclusion about that matter.
What’s in a name? Everything! Looking at history, the travels and formal education of Edward deVere, studying the arguments about who wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare, I realized, that it is deVere who proves himself the capable author of the plays– (The Stratford man is but a business)– but then, how did Will from Stratford get all the credit, and, continue to, over centuries? (classic hoodwink!) Ah hah! A brilliant authorship scheme, the stuff of dreams! Mysteries of the heart & pen. Hoodwinking schemes & dreams . . . (recall, in Elizabeth 1st’s England, if you’re rich, the upper-class, you’re forbidden to put your name to the stage play. Alas, what’s an Earl to do? (one who writes, reads, dreams, and travels)
As an Oxfordian, allow me to point out to all the doubters & Stratfordians– There is an authorship scenario (that could be true). Instead of taking an academic or popular view of proclaiming the AUTHENTIC author, I chose a comedic what if… approach, a solution of sorts, that despite its simplicity, could actually show that Edward deVere, 17th Earl of Oxford was/is the actual author of the plays (& sonnets). “How far this little candle throws its beams! So shines the truth in a weary world, sick of false claims.”
So . . . I created a cheeky “what if . . . comedy, COCKSURE, (2 formats: an original screenplay and stage play) that illuminates the plight of Authors & Actors, no matter the Age or Stage. The premise (which no one can prove or disprove) is simple: What if . . . Earl Edward deVere and William Shaksper actually met (quite by chance), then, planned and executed their grand ruse?
To lure you in, here’s COCKSURE’s “Log Line”: Lost in London, two wannabe-actors of disparate sensibility, one a dolt (Peter Pinchon), the other a dreamer (Phil Herrup), both cocksure dart-players & wooers of women, stumble upon the chance-meeting of Edward deVere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and unknown William Shaksper . . . So begins the plotting & scheming– the grandest ruse in literary history! Names change. Lives change. Careers take off (well, some), mis-adventures multiply, and Theatres will never be the same! What’s in a name? ‘Tis a mystery!
Like the real Shakespeare, I discovered truth is hard to tell– it sometimes needs fiction to make it plausible. My quest: bringing to light this 400 + year-old Authorship mystery, in a way accessible to international audiences, to enlighten the public (and teens), via a comedy-mystery. The job of the artist is to always deepen the mystery.
To the Stratfordians I say: However much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing. To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. What’s in a name? Everything! “Cocksure” mixes the audacity of “The Big Lebowski”, the imagination of “Monty Python & the Holy Grail”, the bawdiness of Tony Richardson’s period comedy “Tom Jones”, the fun of “A Fish Called Wanda”, and the heart of “Shakespeare in Love”.