Who really wrote the works of William Shakespeare

Ok, this is the chapter “Who really wrote the works of William Shakespeare” from this book. Despite me recently seeing an interview with him and being really disappointed in what he said and how he acted (never admire someone so much before you get to know them as a person), I still recommend this book. It’s older form 2012, so he was probably alot better back then and he may have been threatened since then. sigh

I learned a ton from this book that I didn’t know before. I’m going to post the chapters that were shorter that matter to me the most. I’m still not finished reading it though LOL I’m 91% almost done. It’s a very long informative book.

If you are really poor and need me to give you mine, just reach out.

I hate Shakespeare, so I never read it unless I was forced to in school, but a ton of people worship this so called “author,” and I found the theory on who he really was so interesting, that I wanted to share it with you.

So here we go…

---

Did William Shakespeare really write such immortal works as ‘Romeo and Juliet’, ‘Macbeth’ or the ‘Merchant of Venice’? How about ‘Hamlet’ and ‘Twelfth Night’? And are we really sure that he wrote all the sonnets and countless other poems attributed to him? There would appear to be little doubt that all his works, stylistically speaking, were the product of one individual, but who was that individual?

Let us start at the beginning, then. Who was the character known as William Shakespeare and what was his story?

Shakespeare was born in 1564 in the English midlands market town of Stratford-upon-Avon, in the early years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. He was a contemporary of such notables as Sir Walter Raleigh, of Sir Francis Drake and the literary giant Christopher Marlowe but for someone of such apparent great stature in the literary world, almost nothing is known about Shakespeare’s life.

We know that he was the son of a master glover (glove maker), John Shakespeare and Mary Arden, an aristocrat’s daughter and had seven siblings (four sisters and three brothers) about whom nothing is known and he married Anne Hathaway in 1582 at the age of eighteen, with Hathaway giving birth to their first child just six months later in May 1583. Despite several sources claiming that he attended King Edward VI Grammar School in Stratford, this is pure conjecture as the school records from that period have not survived. From his marriage at age eighteen until his sudden appearance on the London acting circuit more than ten years later, nothing at all is recorded or known of his actions and whereabouts.

It is intriguing for example, that during his assumed 25 years of living in London, with as many as eight addresses quoted in a range of sources, he is never recorded in church attendance lists, even though attendance was compulsory at that time and therefore had to be recorded by law.

The origins of Shakespeare’s professional career are also still debatable. For example, we do not know where or with which company he first became an actor and writer but after 1592 however, his life in London suddenly does become a little clearer. Shakespeare’s early fame came through history plays, his first being a trilogy on the ‘Wars of the Roses’ and by the end of 1592 he had supposedly written the sequel, Richard III. His first definite address is documented as Bishopsgate in tax records and he is thought to have lived there from 1592, maybe earlier.

Shakespeare’s supposed ‘rival’ Christopher Marlowe was murdered in May 1593 and this event, perhaps significantly, marks the point in time at which Shakespeare’s almost ‘overnight success’ began.

For many years there has been much conjecture and intrigue surrounding the writing of those masterpieces of English literature ascribed to the pen of William Shakespeare. On the one hand, those people who revel in controversy and the attribution of conspiracy theories to almost anything we can name, gleefully add the name of William Shakespeare to the list whilst those of a more prosaic nature tend to hold the opposite, traditionalist view of the world and cling rigidly and sometimes blindly to the mainstream position, regardless of evidence to counter their views. The facts in all cases such as these should be examined thoroughly before jumping to wild, unsubstantiated conclusions. So, let us begin…
The belief that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him, may seem at first glance to be both bizarre and unbelievable. How and why could this be? What would be the purpose of, or the motive behind, such a deception? Surely it would defy any kind of logic? However, Shakespeare’s doubters are by no means cranks or so-called ‘conspiracy nuts’, they number amongst them such well-respected literati as Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Henry James, Walt Whitman and Daphne du Maurier, to name just a small selection. Their view was most definitely that there is a real and compelling ‘authorship’ issue.

For starters, there is a total lack of evidence in biographical records that a man by the name of William Shakespeare the ‘Bard’ of Stratford-upon-Avon was ever a writer. The only positive identification between the man himself and the works bearing his name came posthumously, as noted by Sir Hugh Trevor Roper…

“Of all the immortal geniuses of literature, none is personally so elusive as William Shakespeare. It is exasperating and almost incredible that he should be so. After all, he lived in the full daylight of the English Renaissance, in the well-documented reigns of Elizabeth and James I. Since his death and particularly in the last century, he has been subjected to the greatest battery of organised research that has ever been directed upon a single person. Armies of scholars, formidably equipped, have examined all the documents that could possibly contain at least a mention of Shakespeare’s name. One hundredth of this labour applied to one of his insignificant contemporaries would be sufficient to produce a substantial biography.”

So exactly what has all this intensive research revealed about the man? It is fairly certain that he was an actor, a shareholder in a theatre, a tax defaulter, a malt dealer, a commercial moneylender, a landlord, a litigant, a mean husband and a churlish father. However there is no existing evidence connecting him, however tenuously with the profession of writer, let alone indicating that he was the greatest dramatist that ever lived. If a psychologist were to undertake a psychological profile of the man, he would without doubt declare him to be a most undistinguished and ordinary individual, totally removed from the image one would expect of the genius who created the magnificent works which bear his name.

There is an absolute abundance of incongruity surrounding the life of this strange, mysterious character. As previously stated, for example, there are no records of the education of Shakespeare in existence. In fact, on the contrary, it is known for certain that he did not attend university and left no trace regarding a school education. It is also extremely surprising and possibly significant that he did not leave a single manuscript of even one of his plays or poems in his own handwriting, nor is there any evidence that he ever wrote a single piece of correspondence. All in all, very odd indeed.

It is also surprising to learn that both of Shakespeare’s parents were illiterate, as was his daughter Judith, who could only sign her name with a virtually indistinguishable mark. Would a profoundly intelligent, educated and enlightened person such as one who was able to produce the wonderful masterpieces he allegedly did, treat his children in such a way, even a girl child? Was he perhaps of the view that the education of girls was a waste of time? This does not fit the picture of his supposed character at all.

It is also extremely clear from what we do know of the man and his family background that even very basic literary competence and/or a tradition of education was not a priority in any way for his family. And yet, in spite of this fact, Shakespeare was apparently immensely well-read and worldly-wise in an age where information was not ‘on tap’ instantly to those who wished to enjoy its benefits. Indeed books were a rare commodity to which virtually none but the wealthy and privileged had access and significantly Shakespeare’s will makes no mention at all of any books, nor any of his literary works whose potential values, even at that time must have been immense.

Also significantly, of the six surviving alleged signatures of Shakespeare, only two are generally regarded as emanating from the same hand.

“It is obvious at a glance that these signatures, with the exception of the last two, are not the signatures of the same man. Almost every letter in each is formed in a different way.” Shakespeare in the Public Records by Jane Cox, 1985

So, was the greatest writer in all history so intellectually and manually challenged that he was barely able to write his own name? Another disturbing fact is that Shakespeare appeared to be almost senile by 1612. His deposition to the Bellott vs. Mountjoy court case in that year reveals that he is very confused and capable of expressing himself only in very basic and crude English. Hardly what one would expect of the great man himself.

Another puzzling anomaly is that his death passed entirely unnoticed. There was no recognition of loss and no-one bothered to even acknowledge the fact, let alone pay any tributes to him. There was no state funeral as there had been for his peers Ben Jonson, Francis Beaumont and Edmund Spenser. Beaumont indeed died a few months before Shakespeare and received a fulsome national tribute whereas all Shakespeare’s departure mustered was a deafening silence. Who today other than scholars and devotees of English literature has even heard of Francis Beaumont?

In fact his departure from this life was as mysterious as his sudden appearance upon the scene in 1593, shortly after the death of Christopher Marlowe, a fact to which we will return later. The newly-arrived poet from the backwaters of rural Warwickshire, managed to so cleverly disguise his regional background and what must have been an ear-wrenching midlands accent and dialect to the refined souls of the capital city, as to illicit no comment from his contemporaries whatsoever. But also significantly I believe, not once does his use of language in writing ever betray that homely, rural dialect he must surely have possessed, given the geography and nature of his upbringing.

Shakespeare’s work reveals its writer as an ‘insider’, a man totally at ease with the intellectual and social elite of his day and most definitely not as a gauche countryman, which given his background and the age in which he lived, should almost certainly have been the impression he conveyed to his London contemporaries. Also, people who are highly gifted individuals, as was whoever wrote Shakespeare’s works, naturally attract attention and praise wherever they go, whereas Shakespeare most certainly did not. In fact he was all but anonymous apart from in name.

His works demonstrate an intimate, detailed knowledge of geography, history, the classics, international politics and diplomacy, a first-hand experience of Italian ways and customs as in such works as The Merchant of Venice, Two Gentlemen of Verona and Romeo and Juliet as well as an intellectual level of the highest order. However, despite this his only friends would appear to have been lowly actors and theatre people and there is no evidence whatsoever linking him to the intelligentsia of the day. Despite his gargantuan intellectual capacity, was he just simply a boring non-entity of a man?

This strange lack of connection with the literary hierarchy of the time is compounded by the curiously reticent way in which he refers to himself throughout his sonnets. To whom were the sonnets addressed and dedicated and to what events in the life of their author do they refer? Nothing that is known of the man seems to fit the description and this compounds the issue somewhat.

“Why did Shakespeare, apparently never averse to any transaction that would financially benefit him, defer publication of his sonnet series until many years after the Elizabethan sonneteering vogue had spent itself? So that, whereas all other sonnet sequences went into many editions, his made only one very limited edition, never to be reprinted for over thirty years? Was their publication in fact, suppressed? To date, not a single one of these questions has been satisfactorily answered, although theories abound.” A.D.Wraight, 1993

Sonnets 71 to 76 are the ones wherein the poet’s identity is most strongly revealed. This series makes repeated references to its author’s name and more significantly, to the danger of its being revealed.

Apart from literary references, the evidence linking the actor Shakespeare to the writer Shakespeare is also scant and it is partly for this reason that attempts have been made to assign an alternate identity to the writer from that of the actor. The three most common names in the frame are Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford and Christopher Marlowe, but they all would appear at first glance to have a serious drawback and therefore strong reasons to suggest they are incorrect. Francis Bacon did not possess the literary acumen and skill that Shakespeare’s works would have demanded, the Earl of Oxford likewise would be disqualified on similar grounds and also by the fact that he died in 1604, well before the final works were known for certain to have been written. Christopher (Kit) Marlowe on the other hand would certainly have had the education, literary track record, writing skill and life experience to have written them but the problem with this assumption is that as Marlowe was murdered in 1593, this would seem to rule out that particular possibility.

Countering the premise that the actor William Shakespeare was not the man who wrote the works attributed to that name, is almost the entire Elite literary and historical establishment whose vested interest in protecting the knowledge that has been the received wisdom for almost 400 years, is obvious. Should it ever be proven that Shakespeare was not the author of Shakespeare’s works, then the entire bedrock of academic orthodoxy would be shaken to its foundations by such a revelation and as we see in other areas of Elite orthodoxy being unwilling to yield to the truth, the entire ‘house of cards’ may well come crashing-down upon the heads of its upholders.

As with other areas of accepted knowledge, challenges to the ‘powers that be’ are never very welcome nor treated as a basis for rational debate. In order for the incumbents to retain control, potential usurpers of the status quo must be strongly resisted at all costs by the expedients of; wholesale denial, treating them with utter contempt or ignoring them completely is the usual recourse. The simple act of questioning the authorship of ‘Shakespeare’s’ works is enough to engender extreme hostility from the establishment as with the questioning of other ‘sacred cows’ of the powers that be and this in itself speaks volumes.

In 1994, the historian A. D. (Dolly) Wraight postulated that Christopher Marlowe did not die in 1593 as has been widely claimed, but that his so-called murder in May of that year was a ruse to enable him to escape his imminent arrest, torture and execution on the grounds of his well-known atheistic views. After 1593, Marlowe, according to Wraight’s theory, went into voluntary exile in France and Italy but continued to write his literature under the pseudonym of ‘William Shake-speare’.

Kit Marlowe was indeed a genius and had fate not intervened in the form of his being persecuted by the fundamental Christianity that was rife throughout society at that time, it may well have been he who was regarded as ‘the Bard’ and the greatest literary icon that ever lived rather than the man who now bears those accolades. From 1587 until his alleged death in 1593 he was the author of a series of wonderful literary works to rival even the best that ‘Shakespeare’ himself could manage. There had been nothing in literature to challenge his superiority before and only Shakespeare since, has been remotely comparable to the genius that was Marlowe.

Christopher Marlowe

Marlowe’s biographer, Dr. John Bakeless noted without irony that Shakespeare’s work is replete with allusions to and quotations from Marlowe’s work, whilst almost entirely ignoring his other literary contemporaries. There are numerous comparisons between the two and even contemporary literary critics were often known to have confused the works of both on occasion, such was the stylistic similarity.

“All the blank verse in Shakespeare’s early plays bears the stamp of Marlowe’s inspiration.” Sir Sidney Lee.

“Marlowe is the greatest discoverer, the most daring pioneer in all our poetic literature. Before Marlowe there was no genuine blank verse and genuine tragedy in our language. After his arrival, the way was prepared, the path made straight for Shakespeare. Compared with his contemporaries such as Greene, Peele and Lodge, Marlowe differs from such people not in degree, but in kind; not as an eagle differs from wrens and tit-mice, but as an eagle differs from frogs and tadpoles. He first and he alone, gave wings to English poetry; he first brought into its serene and radiant atmosphere the new strange element of sublimity… Among all English poets he was the first full-grown man. Only young and immature by comparison with such disciples and successors as Shakespeare and Milton; but the first-born among us of their kind.” Algernon Swinburne

I believe that this makes clear that in Swinburne’s view that had Marlowe lived to fulfil his potential, he would have matched the achievements of Shakespeare.

The 20th century literary critic Edward Dowden also believed that in terms of ability, Marlowe was at least Shakespeare’s equal…
“If Marlowe had lived longer and accomplished the work that lay clearly before him, he would have stood beside Shakespeare.”

A more than significant point also is that a number of Shakespeare’s early plays were, until recently, ‘erroneously’ attributed to Marlowe and there is an almost seamless transition from Marlowe’s final work to the first one attributed to Shakespeare. Marlowe ‘died’ on the 30th May 1593 and Shakespeare made his first documented mark on the literary world two weeks later with the publication of the poem ‘Venus and Adonis’. As the scholar Arthur Acheson, noted; “No atom of proof exists to show that previous to the publication of ‘Venus and Adonis’, Shakespeare had done any serious literary work”.

This poem, to which Marlowe’s ‘Hero and Leander’ seems to be a prequel as it refers quite explicitly back to it, was entered at the Stationer’s Register on 18th April 1593 without author. The printed version, appearing in June, contained a dedication and authorial attribution on a page that had been separately printed and interleaved with the main text as though it were an afterthought. This was most certainly not normal practice and was not the way that Shakespeare’s subsequent (second) work was produced (The Rape of Lucrece). Thus do the circumstances around Marlowe’s demise as a literary icon and Shakespeare’s rise from obscurity, dovetail extremely neatly together – overwhelming circumstantial evidence I would suggest.

There are several ways to attempt to determine common authorship of literary works. There is the subjective method and the more objective, statistical methodology. Regarding the latter, one popular technique is to monitor the distribution curve of words and word-types so as to produce a ‘fingerprint’ for each individual writing style and thus provide a comparison with others. This method was devised by the famous, respected physicist Thomas Mendenhall at the turn of the nineteenth into the twentieth century. Mendenhall was very interested in identifying the authorship of Shakespeare’s works, not for reasons of proving any particular pet theory; he merely wished to apply his methodology to an area of popular interest.

He and his specially gathered team of researchers set about counting the more than two million words in Shakespeare’s work, plus those of his contemporaries – a monumental task in the days before information technology and the results of this project were pretty-well unambiguous. The resulting curves for Shakespeare and Bacon were entirely different as were the ones produced for Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher. However, when the curves of Marlowe and Shakespeare were compared the results were astonishing to say the least.

“Something akin to a sensation was produced among those engaged in the work. In the characteristic curve of his plays, Marlowe agrees with Shakespeare about as well as Shakespeare agrees with himself!” Thomas Mendenhall

In the intervening century or so since Mendenhall’s project, his methodology, if anything, has been further perfected. Louis Ule and John Baker updated Mendenhall’s work using computer technology to analyse both word-length frequency distribution and the pace of new word uptake in both Shakespeare’s and Marlowe’s work. Based on analysis of every single piece of work known to have been produced by the hands of these ‘two’ authors, Ule and Baker were able to determine beyond reasonable doubt that they were statistically indistinguishable from one another.

So it is apparent that Marlowe was more than capable of producing Shakespeare’s works, but perhaps a more apposite question may be, who else besides Marlowe would have had the ability and the wherewithal to do so? No-one else would seem to ‘fit the bill’ at all – if the reader will pardon the unintentional pun.

But perhaps a more important issue to address at this point would be the fact that Marlowe was murdered in 1593, was he not and so how could he possibly have written the works attributed to the Bard of Stratford? This is where the plot seriously thickens.

Ten days prior to Marlowe’s death on the 30th May 1593, he had been arrested on a warrant from the Star Chamber on a charge of ‘atheism’. This pseudo ‘court’ was established to ensure enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in camera, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no jury of peers and no witnesses. Over the years it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English establishment and judiciary. Indeed ‘Star Chamber’ has become a byword today for a corrupted court.

From the first day, Marlowe had in effect been out ‘on bail’ and had to appear before the court on a daily basis whilst in the meantime, evidence against him was being collated by his informers. He had been under suspicion of atheism for some time prior to his arrest, being a known member of the ‘School of Night’ who openly discussed taboo issues of the day such as the accuracy of the bible etc. In those days, if something was stated in the bible, such as for example, Methuselah living to the age of 963, then that is exactly what happened – it was not up for question or debate. Anyone espousing a contradictory opinion was an atheist, pure and simple and the penalty for atheism was torture and death, no exceptions.

Marlowe’s play, Tamburlaine had long been held to exhibit atheistic tendencies and was it not the author who was totally responsible for the contents of any work of literature, no matter how brilliant that work may be? His contemporary Robert Greene actually wrote a scathing accusation of atheism directed at Marlowe from his deathbed and this almost certainly contributed to the severe difficulties in which Marlowe found himself.

Then in early 1593, an author and erstwhile friend of Marlowe by the name of Thomas Kyd was found to be in possession of a copy of a ‘heretical’ piece which earned him an acquaintanceship with the rack and all the agony associated with that sorry experience. Under this horrific torture he implicated Marlowe in the writing of the said piece and explained that it must have somehow become mixed-up with his own papers in some way. This statement was enough to precipitate the arrest of Marlowe and his previously far-from-perfect past meant that he would potentially be in far greater danger (indeed probably mortal danger), than was the relative ‘small-fry’, Thomas Kyd.

Thus was engendered a situation whereby Marlowe’s friends decided to act in concert to save him from his almost certain fate at the hands of the torturers and this would entail his complete disappearance in one form or another. Fortunately, Marlowe counted amongst his friends, two very influential Elizabethan gentlemen, Lord Burghley and Sir Thomas Walsingham. Walsingham was Marlowe’s patron and it was at Walsingham’s house in Kent where Marlowe was staying upon the event of his arrest. They were both employed as government intelligence agents in what was in effect a forerunner of today’s MI5 and MI6 and as such were well acquainted with the methodology of executing covert operations – a fact which would become extremely important, especially to Marlowe.

The ‘murder’ itself was very strange, to which anyone who has investigated the facts will bear witness. It involved three men, all known to Marlowe, all of whom had worked under Walsingham and all of whom were well versed in espionage tactics. In fact if one was to hand-pick a team with which to pull-off the alleged plot, then these would certainly have been extremely strong candidates for inclusion in it. Their names were Robert Poley, Nicholas Skeres and thirdly Walsingham’s private secretary, Ingram Frizer. They were all loyal to Walsingham and highly skilled in the art of deception.

Even the location of the ‘murder’ seems to have been carefully chosen also. It was in Deptford, Kent in the house and grounds of Dame Eleanor Bull who was a well-respected lady, a widow and the cousin of the queen’s nanny, Blanche Parry. These very secluded grounds with no unwanted onlookers and just three plotters plus Marlowe, created a perfect environment for a ‘set-up’ of this kind. The only witnesses being the aforementioned threesome and these were almost certainly acting under the orders of Walsingham himself.

Deptford was also seemingly a well-chosen venue for the deception. Firstly it was a port with regular sailings to the European mainland which would have been perfect to facilitate Marlowe’s swift getaway. Secondly, Marlowe was unknown there and so any inquest jury would not have been easily able to identify the corpse in those pre-photographic days and thirdly the most well-known and prominent inhabitant of the town was the Lord Admiral, who was the patron of Marlowe’s own theatre company.

A.D. Wraight herself postulates that there may have been strong reasons for believing that the Queen herself may have been complicit in the plot. Walsingham was well known to her and importantly, highly regarded and trusted implicitly as a loyal subject to her. He also knew that her pet hate was being deceived and he may well have felt uneasy had he not confided in her. He also knew that she enjoyed a little subterfuge and intrigue herself. Indeed would the Queen have been happy to see England’s foremost literary figure, tortured and executed, given her well-known love of literature and the theatre and the fact that she most certainly had no time for religious fanaticism in any form?

So, on the 30th May 1593, Marlowe and his three friends spent eight hours together at Dame Eleanor’s house. The subjects under discussion may only be guessed at but it is certainly a rather unusual way to spend the day, alone with your three murderers-to-be. In the evening they were having supper together when (as the story goes) an argument erupted regarding the bill, ‘ye reckonynge’ and in the ensuing contretemps which continued, we are led to believe, back to the doorstep of their host, Marlowe was fatally stabbed by Frizer ‘above the right eye’, allegedly in self-defence. Of course this is a common occurrence is it not? Groups of friends often get into fatal arguments over something as trivial as a bill, especially affluent men such as these, to whom a bill of at most a few pennies would have been absolutely insignificant. It all seems more than a little suspicious to me, but anyway this was the story they recounted after the fatal event and indeed the one that has gone down in history as the reason for the untimely demise of Marlowe. Frizer himself received a small nick to his head – just serious enough to prove the alibi of ‘self-defence’ but not serious enough to cause any lasting damage.

Marlowe, by contrast, suffered a most strange wound. Forensic science would have us believe that it is impossible to push a knife through the skull just above the eye socket without using absolutely inordinate force. If a wound occurred in this region it would have to have been made by an axe or a pick or another heavy implement, to try and force a mere dagger through the skull bone at that point would have required immense strength. It would also be almost impossible to create a wound of that nature in what was in effect a short, hand-to-hand tussle. It seems more likely that the wound was designed to create a gory mess of the face and thus hinder identification rather than anything else.

In any event, two days later the inquest took place, presided over solely by Danby; the Queen’s coroner who it turns out had no jurisdiction whatsoever to act alone but was legally bound to perform his duties alongside the local coroner, which of course was not the case. This act in effect, nullifies any decision made by this illegal inquest. The decision of the coroner based solely on the testimonies of the three ‘stooges’, Poley, Skeres and Frizer was that Frizer had acted in self-defence and was therefore not guilty of murder. The corpse was immediately and hastily buried in an unmarked grave in Deptford churchyard – a strange event in itself for the body of a very wealthy and famous young man.

In the immediate aftermath, two remarkable incidents took place. Firstly, Frizer was immediately pardoned by the Queen. Usually those involved in suspicious deaths had to wait many months, often languishing in jail before being officially pardoned by the monarch – even those deemed to be innocent and / or acting in self-defence. Secondly, the following day, Frizer and Skeres are on record as being involved in a business transaction with Walsingham. In fact Frizer continued in his role as Walsingham’s servant without a break. This would in itself have been a highly unlikely turn of events had Frizer really been involved in the death of one of Walsingham’s closest friends in a street brawl, whether or not he was considered to be acting in self-defence. I am in little doubt personally that Walsingham engineered the whole event in order to save the life of his esteemed friend, Kit Marlowe.

Perhaps a little more background to the relationship between Walsingham, Marlowe and his three protagonists may be of interest at this juncture. As stated earlier, Walsingham was a prominent member of the Elizabethan secret security services, overseen originally by John Dee, who incidentally was well known to be a practitioner of the dark arts of magick and Satanism and was suspected of being an adept exponent of early attempts at mind control. Indeed many researchers strongly believe that the writing of Shakespeare’s works was in fact a form of mind control in itself and if so, this adds further credence to the case for Marlowe being the author of said works as it is beyond doubt that he was involved with the intelligence services in a major way.

In this same period, Francis Bacon, incidentally also one of the main suspects in the debate about the authorship of Shakespeare’s work, wrote his treatise ‘The New Atlantis’ whilst hundreds of privateers, amongst whom the most prominent was Sir Francis Drake, were in the process of plundering the seas of all the loot they could obtain in order to swell the coffers of the Crown. In the meantime, Sir Walter Raleigh and his like were already preparing the colonies in Virginia for the mass immigration to come, thirty or so years later and through the pernicious methods of The British East India Company, corporatism and later, consumerism was beginning to establish a foothold in Britain and was soon to be emulated by the rest of the ‘civilised’ world.

So, these men, stalwarts of the Elizabethan establishment, were also the standard-bearers of Rosicrucianism, the mystery-teachings of Babylon, passed down through the bloodline families and soon to become what we today know as freemasonry. All of these men most certainly knew their ‘real’ history and were deeply ensconced in such subjects as ritual magick and esoteric ancient knowledge.

This group of people, this brotherhood, are the ancestors and architects of The New World Order we see developing today. They were instrumental in the establishing of London as the ‘New Jerusalem’ and also as the banking capital of the world for their masters, the ancient bloodlines whose origins as previously described can be traced back through all the preceding ancient civilisations into the mists of time.

However, back to the main thrust of the plot. Another interesting twist to this convoluted tale was that in 1601, the Queen seemed to be well aware of who was the real author of ‘Shakespeare’s’ work. Prior to the Essex rebellion in that same year, the conspirators commissioned a performance of Richard III in the belief that this would incite the audience to support or at least condone a coup against Elizabeth I as had been the case in the play in question. This absolutely enraged her, not surprisingly and she was said to have exclaimed “I am Richard III, know ye not that?” She also directed the following tirade at the play’s author… “He that will forget God will also forget his benefactors. This tragedy was played forty times in open streets and houses.”

This comment could surely only have referred to Marlowe. ‘He that would forget God’? Marlowe… the known atheist? ‘…would forget his benefactors’? The Queen, who helped expedite the plot and the subsequent cover-up, was the benefactor indeed! If she had believed that Richard III had been written by Shakespeare, he would at the very least have been arrested and warned, if not much worse.

Next we will examine the evidence presented to us, yet hidden in plain sight by Marlowe in the form of Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets.

The sonnets in particular, paint a vivid picture of their author and this picture is most definitely not one of a struggling Stratfordian actor. They do however describe Christopher Marlowe, his life and alleged death, almost perfectly.

In sonnet no. 74 we discover the following lines…

“…my body being dead, the coward conquest of a wretches knife.”

And also…

“But be contented when that fell arest,
With out all bayle shall carry me away,
My life hath in this line some interest.”

Here ‘Shakespeare’ refers to his own arrest and bail! There is no record of Shakespeare ever having been arrested and bailed, but this is obviously not the case with Marlowe.

And in sonnet 72…

“My name be buried where my body is,
And live no more to shame, nor me nor you.”

In sonnet 50 (below) we possibly have a vivid description of the author’s journey into exile. Again how closely this would fit Marlowe’s life and yet bear no resemblance to that of Shakespeare…

“How heavie doe I journey on the way,
When what I seeke (my wearie travels end)
Doth teach that ease and that repose to say
Thus farre the miles are measurde from thy friend.
The beast that beares me, tired with my woe,
Plods duly on, to beare that waight in me,
As if by some instinct the wretch did know
His rider lov’d not speed being made from thee:
The bloody spurre cannot provoke him on,
That some-times anger thrusts into his hide,
Which heavily he answers with a grone,
More sharpe to me then spurring to his side,
For that same grone doth put this in my mind,
My greefe lies onward and my joy behind.”

Sonnets 25, 33, 34 and 36 also extensively refer to the author’s name having fallen into great disgrace and strongly bemoan this fate. If Shakespeare’s name had ever become embroiled in any kind of scandal or infamy then it would almost certainly have become public knowledge and have been recorded somewhere by someone. The fact that it was not would speak volumes on this subject.

On the other hand, Marlowe’s life was blighted by infamy and disgrace and his contemporary rivals wasted no opportunity to express their schadenfreude at his expense. For example, the Welsh poet, William Vaughan would appear to take delight in Marlowe’s death and the fact that he detected more than a little of the hand of God working behind the scenes…

“…he stabd this Marlowe into the eye, in such sort, that his brains
Coming out at the dagger’s point, hee shortlie after dyed. Thus did
God, the true executioner of divine justice, worke the ende of
impious Atheists.”

Nice man. He was however, far from alone in this. According to Marlowe’s biographer, Charles Norman…

“The outburst of Puritan wrath against Marlowe is without parallel in literature. No vile epithet was too vile for his detractors to use, yet most of them wrote only from hearsay, or merely embroidered one another’s accounts, hardly one able to contain his gloating.”

This attitude is also fairly common today. Many present-day scholars regard Marlowe with contempt for his views and his rather colourful life as an occasional brawler and ‘roaring boy’ as well as being a homosexual predator.

In ‘As You Like It’, the character ‘Touchstone’ says…
“When a man’s verses cannot be understood, nor a man’s good wit seconded by the forward child understanding, it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room. Truly I wish the gods had made thee poetical.”

This is surely referring to Marlowe’s alleged demise over the bill (‘the reckoning’ as it was called in Elizabethan times) and says that it was nothing compared to the continual agony of having to write in disguise and having someone else take all the credit for it.

I believe that this scenario is more than credible but the space available in a book such as this cannot do justice to the scores of examples of Shakespeare’s texts where oblique references are made to Marlowe including anagrams of his name, and vain protestations of his suffering in exile and his innocence. It is clear that Marlowe was desperate to take credit for his own genius (who among us would not be?) and left as many obvious clues as he dare in his great works.

The Shakespeare story is a classical example of the distortion of history in terms of its background reasons. It is indeed just another small piece of the jigsaw puzzle that makes up the ongoing grand conspiracy against humanity. However, perhaps importantly it provides an example of how four or five prominent people working together in complicity can completely fool not just the literary establishment, but almost the whole of humanity for more than four centuries. It provides us with another case in point (should one be necessary) of how unbelievably ‘simple’ it is to falsify events to benefit the few.

---

The only way to win this war is with US TOGETHER NOT SEPARATELY!

People can shirk their responsibility in all of this which is just cowardice, but every day you can always choose to REALLY wake UP and fight with a Warrior like me or someone else to Help Save Yourself, Humanity, and our Mother Earth. ACTION!

Truth, Spirituality (nothing to do with the psyop known a religion), shedding your childhood trauma, becoming a mature adult, and then taking responsibility for yourself HAS to be done.

I know it’s hard because the evils control us, but it HAS to be done. If we all start to do it, this war WILL BE OVER. We have the POWER to stop them, but you have to play your part.

The key is learning who you are with everything else stripped away. Truly look in the mirror.

Learn how to love and respect yourself and then help others. If we all help one another, that’s sharing the workload.

Build alternative communities based on FREEDOM and Truth. Do it together outside of the evils’ mafia governments. It’s the ONLY way.

https://ourfreesociety.com/community

It’s our negative energy they feed off of. So long as we aren’t United and Strong, they can control us. We need to be United and Strong and FIGHT BACK by taking ACTION, NOT just accept what is going on. This is NOT a movie!!!

Both parts have to be done AND people have to STOP WORSHIPING MONEY.

The evils use money as a WEAPON. Money shouldn’t be used to judge others by their WORTH. Anyone who thinks this way is controlled by the evils and is harming Humanity. Yes we need it in THEIR system, so that’s why you need to break FREE from their evil MATRIX.

This war can ONLY BE WON BY US, not some deity or Human. That’s where the psyop religion comes in – SALVATIONISM.

They want you to NEVER grow up and fight them. They want you waiting for someone or something ELSE to save you so they have free reign to kill us while you wait, wait again, wait some more until YOU ARE DEAD.

Here’s my alternative therapy page. I hope you read and bookmark it. https://ourfreesociety.com/alternative-therapy-courses/

There’s NO SHAME in admitting you have issues. WE ALL DO.

It’s when you don’t care and don’t work to rid yourself of them (this doesn’t happen overnight, it’s a work in progress) that I have a problem with that because you refusing to not do the work affects ALL of us, not just YOU.

With tough Love

Michelle
The Our Free Society Warrior Alliance
I hope you learned something.
To work towards getting rid of the evils – https://ourfreesociety.com/worldwide-meditation-and-prayer-circle/
To build our own Supply Network – https://ourfreesociety.com/the-our-free-society-supply-network

Never make Authority your Truth… make Truth your Authority

The definition of insanity is blind obedience and doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Culture teaches us that only the police have the right to defend.

If You Resonate With This Article, Please Share It With Others

And if you can support my work (there are different options), it would be much appreciated. If not, I understand.