Too many candidates make the authorship question absurd—there could only have been one author.”
https://www.shakespeareauthorship.org
About Me
April 20, 2026
April 18, 2026
(809) Non-Stratfordian Alan Green suggesting a cryptographic or occult dimension behind the Shakespeare canon.
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, Bacon or Marlowe) 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 must be regarded as speculative researcher. His work seems closer to symbolic or esoteric interpretation than to historical or philological scholarship.
(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.
April 17, 2026
(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
April 14, 2026
(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
April 13, 2026
(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.
March 28, 2026
March 27, 2026
(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
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/
(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)
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
(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
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/
March 26, 2026
(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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)