Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Alexander Waugh discusses Sir John Suckling, and near the end of the video the focus turns to the number 153, where the play of Hamlet has been transposed to start there instead of page 152.

Waugh promises that he will have an upcoming episode on the number 153, and we already know that it is the Pythagorean 'sacred' ratio number from the Vesica Piscis, connected to Delphi and the 153 fishies in the net from John 21. And, as Waugh discusses in this video, the art is drawing our attention to Delphi.

 

Charles Watkins

Active Member
I've been trying to get up to speed on this topic, so I ordered a couple of books. I got HOW SCIENCE PROVED EDWARD DEVERE WAS WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE by David L Roper because it was short and cheap. There's no 'science' there other than cryptography and nothing like a scientific proof. But he does give a background on the use of ciphers in Elizabethan England and an explanation of the motives behind the deceit. Sir Walter Raleigh shows up in a later chapter. There was a good piece on that weird drawing of Shakespeare you see everywhere.

NECESSARY MISCHIEF by Bonner Miller Cutting is a collection of essays that looks into Shaxspere's will, the practice of wardship, and some curiosities in period art. You get a sense of the political maneuverings that went on, but not much on the central question.

If someone has a recommendation of where to look next, I'd be much obliged.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
There's no 'science' there other than cryptography and nothing like a scientific proof.

Unless I'm missing something, there really isn't any evidence or proof that deVere was the author, beyond the cryptographic arguments.

In terms of other recommended reading, "Shakespeare's Dark Lady" by John Hudson, and "Shakespeare's Secret Messiah" by Joe Atwill, are both excellent introductions to the case for Amelia Bassano Lanier as the true author of the plays and sonnets. If you read between the lines, Joe's book also does a pretty good job of laying out the case that Christopher Marlowe was involved. I haven't read any books specifically addressing the Marlowe claim, but many offerings are available through the Marlowe-Shakespeare Society. Rick and I continue to believe that the plays were written by a team of authors, as is also the case with many Hollywood productions today.
 

Chuck

New Member
I've been trying to get up to speed on this topic, so I ordered a couple of books. I got HOW SCIENCE PROVED EDWARD DEVERE WAS WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE by David L Roper because it was short and cheap. There's no 'science' there other than cryptography and nothing like a scientific proof. But he does give a background on the use of ciphers in Elizabethan England and an explanation of the motives behind the deceit. Sir Walter Raleigh shows up in a later chapter. There was a good piece on that weird drawing of Shakespeare you see everywhere.

NECESSARY MISCHIEF by Bonner Miller Cutting is a collection of essays that looks into Shaxspere's will, the practice of wardship, and some curiosities in period art. You get a sense of the political maneuverings that went on, but not much on the central question.

If someone has a recommendation of where to look next, I'd be much obliged.
The most stimulating book I have read on the topic is 'Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom' by Charles Beauclerk, a descendant of DeVere. I think there is much evidence of his authorship, but the team idea is good too. Certainly many at least had influence, knew each other, and are part of the mix. 'The Rose by Another Name" by Melissa Olson makes the case for Marlowe. Paul Streitz has a book 'Oxford'. Also 'Four Essays on the SAQ' ed by Mike A'dair. Many others including 'Shakespeare By Another Name by Mark Anderson. I didn't like 'Shakespeare's Dark Lady' and feel Joe's work could benefit from some DeVere information. I think he made a better case for themes tied to those in Caesar's Messiah than he did for Bassano's single authorship.
Mark Twain's 'Is Shakespeare Dead/' is a fun introduction from a time before Looney brought modern attention to DeVere.
Charlton Ogborne's thick volume 'The Mysterious William Shakespeare' has a shorter and cheaper summary available called 'The Man Who Was Shakespeare.'
BTW, when is 'Language of the Oligarchs' likely to be available?
 

Charles Watkins

Active Member
Thanks for the recommendations. I just finished SHAKESPEARE'S SECRET MESSIAH and was a bit disappointed. Atwell is convincing about Emilia Bassano playing a part in the creation of the plays, especially those set around Venice, but he does not explain how her works developed into the Shakespeare phenomenon. Surely, there were others involved, others with strong connections to the Royal Court. He goes a little into Christopher Marlowe but waves off Edward deVere, Thomas Nash, Ben Jonson, and other likely suspects. He also fails to make a convincing link between Bassano and Shakspear. There was a distracting repetition of material, suggesting this work was stitched together from other pieces and therefore incomplete.

Though it appeared entirely out of context, the best part of the book to me was the section on the Revelation. Domitian has always intrigued me and I'm just beginning to understand his reign in relation to Vespasian and Titus. I don't see much connection to Shakespeare here, but it got me interested in Atwell's third book in the series.

The closing section on Rabbinical Judaism made me think that this side of conspiracy was probably the one Vespasian was pursuing when the plan was to take over Jerusalem rather than destroy it. They were trying to sell the story that the Messiah was saving the Jews by keeping them out of a disastrous war with Rome, but it obviously didn't fly. The Jews wanted a rebel leader. He probably had planned to replace the priesthood and impose this milder form of Judaism on the subjugated population. It would certainly be easier to institute than Christianity. If he wanted to be taken as God, the last thing he would do is set up some divine rival. The 'Fourth Way' was doing fine without a divine savior, so why try to pawn off a story that was sure to offend faithful Jews?

If Vespasian's plan had been to present himself as the Jewish Messiah, then he would welcome having the Star Prophecy bestowed by Josephus. But Atwell argues he wanted to be seen as God, not the Messiah, so claiming the Star Prophecy would only lead to confusion. I'm thinking the Messiah role was intended for someone who could deliver the Son of Man prophecies without making a claim of godhood. That fits with Vespasian as God, Titus as Son of God ... and Domitian as the Holy Spirit.

Domitian was obsessed by apotheosis and his path to godhood ran through Vespasian and Titus. My impression is that Vespasian was using godhood to buttress his claim to the throne, striking an alliance with Alexandrian Jews to meld himself with Serapis so he would be fit to join Julius, Octavian, and Claudius in succession. Domitian wanted to rule as Lord God.

I'm also inclined to think that the Jesus character was later retrofitted into an established 'Christ' cult to provide a more concrete object of worship than the esoteric figure of Christos. This occurred as Christianity was being molded into a new state religion for Rome. The basis was not Judaism but 'The Way' as taught by Apollonius and the Alexandrians. This shift may well have come under Domitian, who wanted to be regarded as the 'Christ' incarnate. Thus the convoluted symbolism of the Revelation that Atwell so well unfolds.

Josephus provided source material for the New Testament, but probably did not produce the text. (For one thing, he was a better writer than that.) Why would he write four conflicting versions of the gospels? And why would he not have put more of the back story in his History? His scholarship would be far more useful crafting a new Judaism than concocting the Christ Jesus story.

So where do we get Christianity? The Jerusalem church eventually petered out (or moved to Qumran) and had no need for a divine Jesus. However, Pauline Christianity relied heavily on the Alexandrian/Apollonian 'god of love' to free it from Jewish law. The Letters were produced by the arch-heretic Marcion, whose movement was a serious rival to the Roman church. I'd like to understand his rise and where he figured into Roman politics, but he's been pretty well stamped out of history. Clearly he was opposed to the Julians who controlled the Imperial Cult. But when Marcion was finally subdued, his Paul had become so popular that the Romans had to subsume him into their brand of Christianity, even though it contradicted their doctrine and undermined their apostolic succession. Thus the strain to reconcile Peter and Paul. I suspect Eusebius was given that task.

Overall, SHAKESPEARE'S SECRET MESSIAH was a stimulating read, though you don't really get a 'secret Messiah'.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
It seems that De Vere was the central element with Bacon, Neville, Dee, and others providing various functions. Like I said before, there are a large number of fairly recent works focusing on this, including friends and enemies of De Vere that display awareness of what was going on -- in the day, shortly after, and some time after.
Of course, de Vere and Bacon were also, among others, supposed to be half-siblings, through Queen Elizabeth herself. Edward's only "official" sibling was his sister Mary, however. Her first husband, Peregrine Bertie, Baron Willoughby, was born outside of England, because his parents had to flee Roman Catholic Queen Mary. Ironically, Peregrine and Mary were the ancestors of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta Prince and Grand Master Andrew Bertie.
Mary's second husband was Sir Eustace Hart, knighted by King James I, and also a member of his Virginia Company, which Francis Bacon was involved in colonizing. Eustace and Mary have been credited with a son, John Hart, but professional genealogists have pointed out that the 1634 will of Eustace mentions no children, which is true, although a nephew John Hart is listed in it. Eustace had a bad reputation as a womanizer and adulterer (King James had to grant him a royal pardon "for all adulteries and incontinencies"), and Mary was separated from her first husband Peregrine before his passing. Could they have had a son John at this time, who was farmed out to another family to avoid scandal? After all, Mary's own brother Edward was supposed to be a "secret son" also, raised by another family.
What is known is that this branch established itself in Francis Bacon's "New Atlantis", America, with descendant John Hart a Signer of the Declaration of Independence, who invited General George Washington to his home and fed his army (two sons served in Washington's army, and three more were guides for him) before the Battle of Monmouth, during the Revolutionary War. Washington attended the wedding of one of his sons.
A son-in-law of Signer John Hart, Major John Polhemus, was promoted to that rank by Washington at Valley Forge, and after the war became a member of the elite fraternal Society of the Cincinnati, modeled on the British aristocracy (which was publicly denied), and whose first President was none other than George Washington. One of his sons was a co-founder in establishing a Masonic lodge in his hometown.
In turn, two sons of that son became Consuls and Ministers to Peru and Chile (one of them was certainly a Mason), and after the California Gold Rush of 1849 became multimillionaires through business, banking, railroads, and real estate. Their niece married into a Confederate family of Alabama soldiers, merchants, lawyers, circuit court judge, and politicians, pioneers of that state (her father-in-law was President of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad company), and a second cousin (once removed), of those two brothers, became a multimillionaire Vice President, on the Board of Directors, and a major stockholder of the fledgling Standard Oil Company, founded by John D. Rockefeller.
Even today, there is a secret branch of this bloodline, and a cousin of it became a New York City model, asked out by none other than a single (at the time) Donald Trump. Just one branch of it connects to over 100 prominent figures in British and American history, and this American family may well have started secretly from the sister of Edward de Vere, the secret half-brother of Francis Bacon, who planned the "New Atlantis" that they took root in and established themselves. Coincidence?
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Dear Charles,

I can concur with your initial feelings re Shakespeare's Secret Messiah...
Thanks for the recommendations. I just finished SHAKESPEARE'S SECRET MESSIAH and was a bit disappointed. Atwell* is convincing about Emilia Bassano playing a part in the creation of the plays, especially those set around Venice, but he does not explain how her works developed into the Shakespeare phenomenon. Surely, there were others involved, others with strong connections to the Royal Court. He goes a little into Christopher Marlowe but waves off Edward deVere, Thomas Nash, Ben Jonson, and other likely suspects. He also fails to make a convincing link between Bassano and Shakspear. There was a distracting repetition of material, suggesting this work was stitched together from other pieces and therefore incomplete.
...and must agree that others also contributed strongly to the setting out of the plays. However, when I was confronted with Joe's claims, I remembered the one really vivid episode from the BBC Series "I Claudius", where Claudius, unable to run because of his painful childhood limp, hides behind a curtain to evade the soldiers rampaging through the palace after having slain the wretched Emperor Caligula!
Though it appeared entirely out of context, the best part of the book to me was the section on the Revelation. Domitian has always intrigued me and I'm just beginning to understand his reign in relation to Vespasian and Titus. I don't see much connection to Shakespeare here, but it got me interested in Atwell's third book in the series.
True, so reread his section on Titus Andronicus.
The closing section on Rabbinical Judaism made me think that this side of conspiracy was probably the one Vespasian was pursuing when the plan was to take over Jerusalem rather than destroy it. They were trying to sell the story that the Messiah was saving the Jews by keeping them out of a disastrous war with Rome, but it obviously didn't fly. The Jews wanted a rebel leader. He probably had planned to replace the priesthood and impose this milder form of Judaism on the subjugated population. It would certainly be easier to institute than Christianity. If he wanted to be taken as God, the last thing he would do is set up some divine rival. The 'Fourth Way' was doing fine without a divine savior, so why try to pawn off a story that was sure to offend faithful Jews?
The Romans nurtured Rabbinical Judaism as a substitute for Temple Judaism, but having handed over the privilege of moneylending to the former, the Romans had to invent Jesus Christ as a 'safety valve', a control mechanism whereby Roman citizens could be encouraged to persecute and slaughter Jews with Divine sanction, when the Romans fell into unpayable debts to the Jewish creditors. We find an analogy with the formation of Islam where Muhammad drove out the three Jewish tribes from Medina in succession - the Qaynuqa, the Nadir and the Qurayza - establishing the Islamic community only as the Jewish usurer rule was completely supplanted. When Islam expanded after Muhammad's death, the Jews could be controlled easily, since they could be fitted into the system as subordinate financiers, subordinate to the Jizya, the poll-tax for non-believers.
If Vespasian's plan had been to present himself as the Jewish Messiah, then he would welcome having the Star Prophecy bestowed by Josephus. But Atwell argues he wanted to be seen as God, not the Messiah, so claiming the Star Prophecy would only lead to confusion. I'm thinking the Messiah role was intended for someone who could deliver the Son of Man prophecies without making a claim of godhood. That fits with Vespasian as God, Titus as Son of God ... and Domitian as the Holy Spirit.
I think you've answered Joe's conundrum yourself there. :cool:
Domitian was obsessed by apotheosis and his path to godhood ran through Vespasian and Titus. My impression is that Vespasian was using godhood to buttress his claim to the throne, striking an alliance with Alexandrian Jews to meld himself with Serapis so he would be fit to join Julius, Octavian, and Claudius in succession. Domitian wanted to rule as Lord God.
Vespasian and Titus succeeded since they were divinized after death. Domitian however was not!
I'm also inclined to think that the Jesus character was later retrofitted into an established 'Christ' cult to provide a more concrete object of worship than the esoteric figure of Christos. This occurred as Christianity was being molded into a new state religion for Rome.
Here I go further than Joe in that the "established Christ cult" was originally Gnosticism, and they may easily have had a good teacher (Chrestos) from which the Slain God Jesus emerged through amalgamating various ideas from various sects (Cybele & Attis, Tammuz and Mithraism).
The basis was not Judaism but 'The Way' as taught by Apollonius and the Alexandrians. This shift may well have come under Domitian, who wanted to be regarded as the 'Christ' incarnate. Thus the convoluted symbolism of the Revelation that Atwell so well unfolds.
By Apollonius I guess you mean the god-man of Tyana, but I'm happy for the Pauline character Apollo to be inserted here since he was a John-Baptist cultist predating Paul, while the Corinthian community as described in 1 Corinthians was NOT yet a Christian community as the cultists were baptized in the name of the baptizer.
Josephus provided source material for the New Testament, but probably did not produce the text. (For one thing, he was a better writer than that.) Why would he write four conflicting versions of the gospels? And why would he not have put more of the back story in his History? His scholarship would be far more useful crafting a new Judaism than concocting the Christ Jesus story.
I agree, since one person can't do everything, even a couple such as Marlowe and Amelia Bassano. But the point is that Marlowe and Bassano provide not only the nucleus and much of the archetypal outline for the plays, but, as Joe revealed, the essential driving motivation in both cases.
So where do we get Christianity? The Jerusalem church eventually petered out (or moved to Qumran) and had no need for a divine Jesus. However, Pauline Christianity relied heavily on the Alexandrian/Apollonian 'god of love' to free it from Jewish law.
But the Romans did need a divine, a human and a slain Jesus! They 'Petered-out' by making the Church a Rock, Peter the leader and Jesus a God Crucified - crucified by the Jews according to Paul, then by the Romans under Jewish lobbying according to the Gospels. The essential message is "The Christ-killing Jews" because the Jews, at least their elites, had been granted the superlative privilege of being the moneylenders among the ruling elite. Thus the need for a control mechanism - which was utterly destroyed by the coming of Protestantism, hence the Judaeo-Christians and their Zionism, trying to establish financial rule over the whole Earth!
The Letters were produced by the arch-heretic Marcion, whose movement was a serious rival to the Roman church. I'd like to understand his rise and where he figured into Roman politics, but he's been pretty well stamped out of history. Clearly he was opposed to the Julians who controlled the Imperial Cult. But when Marcion was finally subdued, his Paul had become so popular that the Romans had to subsume him into their brand of Christianity, even though it contradicted their doctrine and undermined their apostolic succession. Thus the strain to reconcile Peter and Paul. I suspect Eusebius was given that task.
Paul's letters are redacted by Marcion and no doubt by other authors too. Marcion was extremely anti-Jewish, as were Gnostics generally, Marcion having no interest in Roman economic policy nor the Roman elites' NEED for Jews to be the moneylenders.
Overall, SHAKESPEARE'S SECRET MESSIAH was a stimulating read, though you don't really get a 'secret Messiah'.
Fortune favors the prepared mind! Joe's work there was of course not complete - so how did I know he was right? And that he had provided fundamental insight into the Shakespeare phenomenon, since I had no real love for Shakespeare either?

The answer is Claudius behind the curtain - the soldiers found him and hailed him Emperor!

When I first saw the television version (about 1978) I was struck by the image of a crippled man having to hide behind a curtain, an action more that of a child playing hide and seek. Then and there the only other man-curtain situation I could think of was that of Polonius in Hamlet, where the former amateurishly hides behind a curtain to spy on Hamlet and is run through instantly by the latter's sword when he sees the curtain flutter!

What I did NOT see then was the fact that the two incidents are related, the Hamlet-Polonius story is based upon the historical record of Claudius. Now Joe does NOT mention this incident in Shakespeare's Messiah either - even though he discusses Hamlet. What he did remind me of however - and what I failed to see those decades ago - was that Hamlet's usurping uncle (who had killed Hamlet senior, the former king), though Danish, was also called 'Claudius', giving the correct hint to the prepared mind - a connection implicitly in Joe's mind when he wrote the book, but not in my mind when I first read it!:oops: Only my initial dissatisfaction with the book made me think further - and which also helped me to choose my moniker for this website.:)

Yours faithfully
Claude

*Joe's surname is ATWILL not the commoner Atwell.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Vespasian et al. would likely not want to become the exoteric god(s) of the desired new universal religion. This would be too divisive, not just for the Jews. Besides, they already had their outlet in the imperial cult, the existence of witch would only help the new religion rise, many centuries later, out of the 'solar' bootstrap phase of Chrestianity (see Bartram - thx again to Charles). When the time was ripe an 'eta' is erased into becoming an 'iota'. Walla, Christianity!!! Not much different than converting local twin deities into becoming easily recognizable (names and legends) saints - for those with 'prepared minds'. There weren't that many extant 'Bibles' and people that didn't matter couldn't read if that had access to one. You say zapatos and the Spanish say 'thapatoth', for most people it's just a typical cultural pronunciation shift.

Hence, per tradition and practice, the emperors would successfully become the god(s) behind the (avatar) God, the god behind the Sun, e.g. as with the Aten. The popes would become the serial successors to the emperors and Christ, this as the Vicars (i.e. substitutes) of Christ.

A 'good' religion needs to have its foils (and on Earth as in Heaven), for moral contrast to the proffered savior. The hidden roles of God and Son of God being taken, Domitian, like Nero, played their opposition roles - in support of the greater good, so to speak. Not much different than profiteers and pirates, ehh? The pope needs his hidden foil 'teamate' on Earth, and hence the Black Pope, Papa Nero.

Under the Mosaic 'cultural inversion' rubric (whenever this really happened) the 'Jews' were fabricated (likely on top of a template of a pre-existing Canaanite tribe of 'Judeans') to be a cultural foil for the geopolitical agenda of that day. Come time for the new revelation and covenant, they simply were 're-gifted' to a wider humanity, same as the saints, albeit even they had a new, reformed, wineskin applied.

*Joe's surname is ATWILL not the commoner Atwell.
I wonder if Joe @will repeated any words in SSM exactly 17 times? o_O
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Now that Nicholas de Vere has passed away with no sons, his family is in the same plight as the Edward de Vere Earls of Oxford family, as the de Vere Earls of Oxford male line ended in 1703. However, that most illustrious Oxford family, like the Habsburgs (whose male line ended in 1740, when Maria Theresa succeeded her father Charles VI, with her husband Francis, Duke of Lorraine), has had only that one female "break" in the male line from the 18th century until the present. The de Vere premier male descendant is now Murray de Vere Beauclerk, 14th Duke of St. Albans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Beauclerk,_14th_Duke_of_St_Albans. His son, Charles Francis Topham de Vere Beauclerk, Earl of Burford, has played a prominent role in promoting the Oxfordian theory of Edward de Vere's Shakespearean authorship (no real surprise there), besides claiming that Edward de Vere wrote the works of John Lyly, George Gascoigne, and Thomas Watson. On top of all of that, he has also written a book about the "Prince Tudor theory", in which Edward de Vere was the son and also lover of his own mother, Queen Elizabeth I. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beauclerk_(author) Thus, we have "The Case for De Vere", from a premier representative of that family of the "Truth".
 
Last edited:

Chuck

New Member
Let me again recommend Beauclerk's Prince Tudor Theory book "Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom" even if the author has a vested interest as a descendant of De Vere. In his Titus Andronicus essay, Jerry suggests "that both Asquith [in Shadowplay on the theme of Protestant/Catholic conflict] and Atwill might very well be correct." Same could apply to the theory that many themes and characters in Titus Andronicus and elsewhere in Shakespeare can be better understood through the lens of Edward De Vere - a man well versed in mythology, history of Roman/Jewish war as well as the intrigues of the Elizabethan Court and Protestant/Catholic conflict.
BTW Wikipedia doesn't provide a source for their statement that Beauclerk claims his ancestor also wrote the works of John Lyly, George Gascoigne, and Thomas Watson - quite a tall claim if he really claimed it. Certainly trying to understand the interaction of all these authors along with Marlowe and Bassano is relevant and can add to the themes and typology. And we have no reason to rule out some overlap.
Beauclerk adds a new personal dimension to the revenge literature theme of SSM.
Claude, nice to know how you came to your moniker! The man hiding behind a curtain incident also fits in with the De Vere biography - and not necessarily mutually exclusive with Claudius.
One more thing, in The White Goddess, Robert Graves has a funny chapter where to establish his sanity he tests himself on his ability to use his intuition to explain 666 from Revelation as Domitian.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Let me again recommend Beauclerk's Prince Tudor Theory book "Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom" even if the author has a vested interest as a descendant of De Vere.
On the other hand, who would know better about the true story of his family than him? Personally, as mentioned before, I regard the Dukes of St. Albans as the true representatives of the de Vere family today, especially as the "Dragon" Nicholas de Vere has gone on to other realms. I do owe Nicholas a Thank You for defining a "de Vere" for me, however. Using his criteria, I found a medieval descent from a "de Vere", whom, according to Nicholas was the true King of England, and that ancestor and I do have this in common, neither of us ever sat on a throne (lol)!
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
For Chuck's sake, in case he doesn't know already, on other threads we've discussed that Vespasian and his brother had served in Britain under Claudius' re-conquest. And so, if the De Vere claim is correct then this makes things very interesting regarding such as Titus Andronicus and Titus as the Second Coming per Caesar's Messiah. And that the "Elliptical Building", an altered Pythagorean Vesica Piscis floorplan, was uniquely built in the middle of the Roman Dewa Fortress at today's city of Chester, under the reign of Vespasian.
 
Last edited:

Chuck

New Member
Seeker, you need to add the closed bracket back to the "[/QUOTE"

For Chuck's sake, in case he doesn't know already, on other threads we've discussed that Vespasian and his brother had served in Britain under Claudius' re-conquest. And so, if the De Vere claim is correct then this makes things very interesting regarding such as Titus Andronicus and Titus as the Second Coming per Caesar's Messiah. And that the "Elliptical Building", an altered Pythagorean Vesica Piscis floorplan, was uniquely built in the middle of the Roman Dewa Fortress at today's city of Chester, under the reign of Vespasian.
I didn't know and have a lot to read to get up to speed.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
That web site also had a copy of the late NdV's From Transylvania to Tunbridge Wells, now published as The Dragon Legacy (?). In it, among other things he claims that the De Vere clan of green-eyed, red-heads were the real players of the Bible, a select clan that used their various wiles and abilities to take ruling control across a swath of global geography and time. For instance, the Norman Conquest, which is 1,000 years after the First Jewish War (comparing effective start and finish dates).
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
this is new to me. btw Nicholas De Vere doesn't have a wikipedia page.
Chuck, try this, it will take you to other links also: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Weir-2353
Also, Richard's post #30 on Page 2 has a description of Edward de Vere as "Like one of the most ancient honor'd Romans, From whence his noblest family was derived;" (meaning Roman Emperor Claudius and the Julio-Claudian imperial dynasty?).
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
The most stimulating book I have read on the topic is 'Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom' by Charles Beauclerk, a descendant of DeVere.
Chuck, does Beauclerk devote any space in that book to the sister of Edward de Vere, Mary, and/or her two husbands, Peregrine Bertie, Baron Willoughby, and Sir Eustace Hart?
 

Chuck

New Member
Chuck, does Beauclerk devote any space in that book to the sister of Edward de Vere, Mary, and/or her two husbands, Peregrine Bertie, Baron Willoughby, and Sir Eustace Hart?
No mention of Hart but author speculates that Mary Vere could be one and the same as "Mary Seymour, daughter of Queen Catherine Parr and Lord Admiral Thomas Seymour. Mary disappears from history about a year after her birth (c. august 1549), having spent her infancy in the household of Catherine Willoughby, Dutchess of Suffolk. The Duchess kept what appears to have been an unofficial royal orphanage....and it may be that Edward de Vere was originally placed there too....So it could be that she turned up in the Oxford household as Edward's sister, Mary Vere, who would later marry Catherine Willoughby's son, Peregrine Bertie. Mary Vere is said to have been born in 1554, but there is no recorded birth or baptism (if she was Mary Seymour, she would have been Edward's half-sister.)." page 58
Beauclerk advocates that Thomas Seymour was Edward's biological father. Certainly not a universally held opinion, but he provides circumstantial evidence. Future Queen Elizabeth lived with Catharine Parr and Lord Admiral Seymour at age 13 or so in the early 1540s.
The family most studied in the book is the Cecil family.
 
Top