(809)

Alan W. Green

VIDEO 

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/hcXaKhWIcl4

He is a  (“anti-Stratfordian”) Shakespeare authorship theorist, known for  unconventional interpretations of Shakespeare’s works. 

he argues that Shakespeare’s texts contain hidden codes, symbols, and esoteric messages, rather than being straightforward literary works.

His books—such as “Dee-Coding Shakespeare”—connect Shakespeare to figures like John Dee, suggesting a cryptographic or occult dimension behind the canon.

HE has produced media content (e.g. “Shakespeare Decoded”) exploring these ideas in a more popular format. 

he belongs to a fringe strand of the broader Shakespeare authorship question.

Unlike more widely known alternative candidates (such as Edward de Vere in Oxfordian theory), Green’s approach focuses less on proposing a single historical author and more on decoding supposed hidden structures in the texts

His theories are not accepted by mainstream scholarship, which overwhelmingly supports William Shakespeareas the author based on documentary evidence. 

In academic terms, Alan W. Green  an be  regarded  as  speculative researcher. His work seems  closer to symbolic or esoteric interpretation than to historical or philological scholarship.

(808). Who was william Shakespeare ?

https://www.instagram.com/reels/audio/25679783051681116?igsh=MWI1bXVwMDdvMGV2OQ==

—————————

https://youtu.be/722IsC58edw?is=fGL256ZhbS52y42m

Part 1 

https://youtu.be/vAVjU-cnVKI?is=_MCiYeRBdQ1Q4ru2

Part 2 

https://youtu.be/t4Q0XZBfy_M?is=fubzooYxpH_-KVgM

Part 3

https://youtu.be/AhPOmUePoCo?is=DGv0OMTnwbMeGL9-

(807) Dissolving Shakespeare: How Modern Scholarship Evades the Authorship Question

Prof. Emma Smith

Hertford College  ,Oxford

https://youtu.be/8-vwJwv1gfo?is=OSb2zXAuS4rQPUni

The lecture—part of the University of Notre Dame London Shakespeare Lecture series—offers a polished and fashionable argument: “Shakespeare” is not a stable historical author but a fluid cultural construct, endlessly rewritten by performance, adaptation, and modern reception. It insists that meaning is produced in the present—by directors, audiences, and global reinterpretations—rather than anchored in any recoverable historical figure. This emphasis on plurality and reinvention is not new; it reflects a now-standard academic posture that privileges reception over origin and treats the plays less as authored works than as an evolving cultural process. 

Yet this stance, for all its sophistication, quietly evades the central historical question: who actually wrote the works? By dissolving authorship into a cloud of “uses,” it risks turning a concrete problem into an aesthetic slogan. The celebration of ambiguity can feel less like intellectual openness than like a convenient retreat—one that protects orthodox assumptions by declaring the author irrelevant. In this sense, the talk is eloquent but evasive: it substitutes interpretive freedom for historical responsibility, and in doing so, naturally and inevitably  leaves the most pressing question—authorship itself—curiously untouched.

(806) An Oxfordien prelude to the authorship question??

                              https://youtu.be/KBDcbecx7-4?is=Dh2QTRwYEB0ROuAs

Polite Doubt, Strategic Silence: An Oxfordian Prelude That Avoids Marlowe

This video conversation is less a contribution to the Shakespeare authorship debate than a carefully staged prelude to one—and even that may be too generous. The two Oxfordians present themselves as open-minded seekers of truth, but their “methodological neutrality” quickly reveals itself as a soft introduction to the familiar orbit of Edward de Vere. The tone lies nothing that has not been said for decades.

Their central maneuver—casting doubt on William Shakespeare—is by now intellectually exhausted. Raising biographical gaps and documentary silences is not a breakthrough; it is the lowest common denominator of all anti-Stratfordian positions. What is conspicuously absent is any serious attempt to move beyond this negative critique toward a positive, evidence-based solution.

Most striking, however, is their complete avoidance of Christopher Marlowe. This is not an innocent omission. Marlowe is the one figure whose documented literary power already stands on the same level as the Shakespeare canon and whose “death” in 1593 opens the door to the most radical—and logically demanding—explanation: continued authorship under multiple identities. To ignore this is not caution; it is evasion.

The conversation  retreats into a comfortable vagueness: a call for discussion, for openness, for “asking questions.” But without confronting the strongest competing theory, this posture rings hollow. It creates the impression of intellectual fairness while carefully sidestepping the most inconvenient line of inquiry.

In the end, the “new message” amounts to little more than a rebranded Oxfordian soft sell: doubt Stratford, hint at de Vere, avoid Marlowe. From a critical standpoint, this is poor  progress—it is a strategic narrowing of the field disguised as open debate.

https://m.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550/videos

(805) The Marlowe Survival: The Evidence No One Dares to Confront”.. —- Marlowe the only possible True Shakespeare!

The True Shakespeares (=Marlowe) Survival: 

The Evidence No One Dares to Confront”.. 

A serious reassessment of the fate of Christopher Marlowe must now acknowledge that both direct and indirect evidence for his survival has accumulated to a degree that can no longer be dismissed as mere speculation. (Click links below)

INdications  emerge in the sudden  and unexplained cessation of Marlowe’s documented life contrasted with the immediate rise (afterwards) of sophisticated literary works attributed to William Shakespeare, whose biography totally lacks corresponding intellectual development. The involvement of figures tied to intelligence circles, such as Sir Francis Walsingham and his network, definitely strengthens the plausibility of a staged disappearance. 

Stylistic continuities between Marlowe’s known works and later drama provide cumulative indirect evidence that exceeds coincidence. The persistent absence of authentic personal documents for Shakespeare contrasts sharply with the depth of knowledge displayed in the plays. 

The convergence of these strands—documentary anomalies, political context, literary continuity, and biographical gaps—forms a coherent evidentiary pattern.  The totality of evidence now functions as a de facto argument for it. To ignore this convergence is increasingly to defend orthodoxy rather than to pursue historical truth.

VIDEO Archive  on the Marlowe Theory

https://youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550?si=fjhNf09VyjsSD62c

———————

Recent Youtube Video (link below)

 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6jCVS1yTzmU

(804). WHy the VIDEO title: an illiterate fraud”

This video is a good example of how Stratfordian orthodoxy survives—not through evidence, but through  visual Ai spectacle. - What we are shown is not argument but: polished AI imagery, confident AI narration, and a staged illusion of certainty. The effect is almost hypnotic. But beneath this aesthetic surface lies a strange emptiness: no engagement with primary documents, no confrontation with anomalies, no serious attempt to address the hundreds of unresolved problems surrounding the life of William Shakspere of Stratford. —.  Instead, alternative authorship research is dismissed with a wave of the hand—as if decades of scholarship, textual analysis, and historical inquiry could be reduced to a “nuisance.” -   That is not how intellectual history advances. It is how dogma protects itself.  AI, in this case, does not illuminate—it decorates. —-If Stratfordianism were as secure as this video suggests, it would not need to rely on dismissal. It would welcome scrutiny. But it does not. That, perhaps, is the most telling detail of all.

(803). Why the Shakespeare Authorship Debate Is Suddenly Growing Online (57)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F6qZDcfDTtc

(802) A Quiet Revolution: Why More People Now Question Shakespeare (56)

 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0fPVWEICpng&t=14s&pp=ugUEEgJlbg%3D%3D

(801) Christopher Marlowe’s Death: The One Story That Never Quite Adds Up (55)

 https://youtu.be/SZorTWVfHs0?is=gNXXdsfdzpFpuFsJ

VIDEO - L I N K 

https://youtu.be/SZorTWVfHs0?is=gNXXdsfdzpFpuFsJ

In her talk, Ros Barber questions the traditional attribution of Shakespeare’s works to William Shakespeare of Stratford‑upon‑Avon, arguing that the historical evidence is inconclusive. 

She frames the authorship debate as “a thousand questions reduced to one”: do we have reliable proof that Shakespeare wrote the plays? 

Barber highlights gaps and ambiguities in letters, publication records, and contemporary references, and points to the mysterious circumstances of Christopher Marlowe’s reported death in 1593 as a possible connection. She stresses that questioning authorship is not conspiratorial but a matter of critical inquiry, urging viewers to reconsider assumptions and approach the evidence with open-minded reasoning. Ultimately, 

Barber advocates for acknowledging uncertainty 

and exploring (necessary, new)  alternative

 possibilities about who truly authored 

the works, otherwise the 400 year 

old enigma cannot/ will not

not be solved

anymore.

—————————

   Marlowe/Shakespeare Authorship Video Archive:

https://www.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550

Open Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts

                                                       ->Popular

B:).    Marlowe BLOGPOST(780)      https://the-true-shakespeare.blogspot.com/

(800) Inflation of Shakespeare authorship Videos within a few years (54)

 https://youtu.be/H8iQOR-tBRg?is=to1p3VgK4ZmSlGVi

(799) Why the Shakespeare Authorship Question Refuses to Die? (53)

VIdeo Link

 https://youtu.be/hQWF4LmYHnA?is=2N-UB9WuZpakm-20

Shaksper  of Stratford doesn’t fit because his documented life totally lacks the education, recognition, and insider knowledge reflected in the works, whereas Marlowe’s known genius, education, and literary acknowledgment align perfectly with the plays’ intellectual demands.

(798) 👉 The Fatal Weakness in the Oxfordian Theory (52)

VIDEO L i n k 

https://youtu.be/GLjXXaUpT2M?is=Z_g-5lUFGNs9dhIm

The video argues that the Shakespeare authorship problem exists because the greatest body of literature in English is attributed to a man from whom no personal literary document —( not even a single letter ever discovered) — survives.

(797) Inflation of Shakespeare Authorship Videos within a few years (51)

V I D E O.  Link

 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpoynrgqO_g

The Shakespeare authorship question arises from the striking mismatch between the historical record of the Stratford man and the extraordinary intellectual range of the works attributed to him.

Shak Paradox

(796). What Shakespeare’s Biography Cannot Explain (50)

 BONNER MILLER-CUTTING 

„Orthodox“ Oxfordian

https://youtu.be/pOIAL172fPI?is=O0yDrM8gxNUgnd5J

(795) Inflation of Shakespeare Authorship Videos within a few years (49)

 https://youtu.be/TmKwYPK1La0?is=SKXfu_cuA_fRGdj6

The central message of this Video is not to prove a specific alternative author but rather:

 The Shakespeare authorship question remains an intriguing intellectual debate, and discussing it can be enjoyable as well as thought-provoking.

——

A:).   Marlowe/Shakespeare Authorship Video Archive:

https://www.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550

Open Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts

                                                       ->Popular

B:).    Marlowe BLOGPOST(780)      https://the-true-shakespeare.blogspot.com/

(794) Did Christopher Marlowe Write Under Many Names? The Evidence Revisited

 

https://youtu.be/qb_jTnhib_o?is=Z3J2GUkJACOt0cj3

The documentary investigates the Shakespeare authorship question with primary focus on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

It presents the Oxfordian argument that de Vere — not the man from Stratford — wrote the Shakespeare plays.

The film highlights de Vere’s aristocratic education, court experience, and travels in Italy as parallels to the plays’ knowledge.

It argues that the works reveal insider familiarity with noble life and political affairs.

The documentary suggests that social conventions may have required an aristocrat to publish under a pseudonym.

Biographical events in de Vere’s life are compared with themes and situations in the dramas.

Stratfordian scholars’ objections are mentioned but receive less emphasis.

Historical documents and literary clues are interpreted in support of the Oxfordian case.

The program frames Shakespeare as a possible literary front or name used for concealment.

It concludes by presenting Edward de Vere as a compelling alternative author while acknowledging continuing controversy.

———————————-

A:).   Marlowe/Shakespeare Authorship Video Archive:

https://www.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550

Open Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts

                                                       ->Popular

B:).    Marlowe BLOGPOST(780)      https://the-true-shakespeare.blogspot.com/

(793) The Truth Will Out: Who Really Wrote Shakespeare? (47)

 The Truth  will out 

VIDEO Link

https://m.youtube.com/watch?is=cd1eKyRsSyEM5T2D&v=oIMZ6XSSpUM&feature=youtu.be

The documentary ( as well as the Marlovian theory ) begin from the  premise: both question the traditional attribution of the works to William Shakespeare and emphasize the gaps in the historical record, the political dangers of Elizabethan England, and the plausibility of concealed authorship.

 However, the film remains exploratory and open-ended, presenting authorship as a mystery and suggesting hidden identities without committing to a definitive solution, whereas the Marlovian theory advances a specific and unified explanation by identifying Christopher Marlowe as the continuing author who allegedly survived 1593 and wrote under the Shakespeare name. 

Thus, while the documentary raises doubts and highlights anomalies, the Marlovian position attempts to resolve those anomalies through a coherent historical mechanism involving pseudonymity, political protection, and stylistic continuity, transforming suspicion into a single explanatory model.

—————————————

A:).   Marlowe/Shakespeare Authorship Video Archive:

https://www.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550

Open Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts

                                                       ->Popular

B:).    Marlowe BLOGPOST(780)      https://the-true-shakespeare.blogspot.com/

(792) The Strange Silence of Shakespeare’s Contemporaries (46)

https://youtu.be/asWYvI4aUM0?is=4YsDlEbW8FYm1QGl

 The truth will  out-  Shakespeare authorship docu 

https://youtu.be/Yno2zCfWrR0?is=XS0lUMGEJbyquZTi

Filmmaker Amanda Eliasch joins Lady Colin Campbell to discuss the enduring mystery surrounding Shakespeare's authorship. They explore various candidates and the historical context, examining Tudor England's education system and social structures. This insightful conversation delves into the complexities of pseudonymity and the impact on literary interpretation.

1Who actually was William Shakespeare? Was this a brand name? A pseudo name? Rather like Marilyn Monroe?. This documentary is about Amanda's journey to uncover and understand Elizabethan England. The lies, the succession of Elizabeth 1st, the battle between Catholics and Protestants and the problems of the Succession all presented in "Shakespeare" plays. With Sir Derek Jacobi, Richard Clifford, The De Vere Society, Hank Whittemore, Amanda Eliasch, Alexander Waugh, Stewart Pearce, Annabel Leventon, Ron Destro, Jan Cole.

———————-

 

A:).   Marlowe/Shakespeare Authorship Video Archive:

https://www.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550

Open Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts

                                                       ->Popular

B:).    Marlowe BLOGPOST(780)      https://the-true-shakespeare.blogspot.com/

(791) Too Many Shakespeare Videos, Too Few Answers — A Marlovian Perspective

 

  

https://youtu.be/xbo_frwieiM?is=edCtzUPlqd075YRo

—————————-

A:).   Marlowe/Shakespeare Authorship Video Archive:

https://www.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550

Open Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts

                                                       ->Popular

B:).    Marlowe BLOGPOST(780)      https://the-true-shakespeare.blogspot.com/

(790) 👉 Do Stratfordian Arguments Really Solve the Authorship Problem? (44)

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcc7_KOnzU

Tom Regnier’s lecture, 

Justice Stevens, the Law of Evidence, 

and the Shakespeare Authorship Question, 

reframes  the authorship debate through the lens of legal reasoning rather than literary tradition. By invoking standards associated with U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, Regnier asks how the case for the Stratford man would fare if judged according to courtroom evidentiary rules. He emphasizes the absence of manuscripts, letters, or documented literary activity directly linking the man from Stratford to the works, arguing that what is commonly accepted rests largely on circumstantial attribution rather than demonstrable proof. The strength of the lecture lies in this methodological shift: it challenges viewers to consider not authority, but standards of evidence.

Regnier’s focus on missing documentation may risk becoming an argument from silence, since much of early modern literary history survives only fragmentarily. Nonetheless, the lecture is intellectually stimulating because it forces a fundamental question: 

what level of proof should we require before treating authorship as settled fact?